First American Fin. Corp. v. Edwards

20 Citing briefs

  1. Thomas Robins v. Spokeo, Inc.

    OPPOSITION to MOTION to Stay Case pending Resolution of Its Petition for Certiorari 89

    Filed May 19, 2014

    The Supreme Court has since dismissed the writ of certiorari as “improvidently granted.” First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2536, 183 L.Ed.2d 611 (2012). Perhaps the Supreme Court realized that reversing Edwards would create an unworkable constitutional standard and that permitting a federal judge to decide whether injuries already codified by legislatures are sufficiently “injury-like” to satisfy Article III standing is tantamount to deciding which statutory rights are, in the judge’s personal opinion, sufficiently important to bring suit.

  2. Austin-Spearman v. AMC Network Entertainment LLC et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint. . Document

    Filed October 23, 2014

    That is because where the only injury is a violation of legal duty that had no effect on the plaintiff (or at minimum, no effect attributable to the party she has sued), the defendant has caused nothing, and thus the “causal connection” ______________________ F.3d 514, 517 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding statutory violation alone satisfied Article III standing), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 132 S. Ct. 2536 (2012). 4 See also In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litig., MDL 2443 (SRC), 2014 WL 3012873, at *3–4 (D.N.J. Jul. 2, 2014) (dismissing on other grounds); Ellis v. Cartoon Network, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-484-TWT, 2014 WL 5023535, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 8, 2014) (dismissing on other grounds); In re Hulu Privacy Litig., No.

  3. Muench Photography, Inc. v. Pearson Education, Inc.

    RESPONSE

    Filed January 13, 2014

    11 Edwards v. First American Corp., 610 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. dismissed, 132 S.Ct. 2536 (2012) (citations omitted). 12 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); see also New York v. Microsoft Corp., 209 F.Supp.2d 132, 149 (D.D.C. 2002) (“if either Article III standing or statutory standing is absent, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction”), citing Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd.

  4. Kinder v. Bauer Publishing Co., LP

    RESPONSE to 50 MOTION Amend Orders and for Stay re Order on Motion to Dismiss, Defendants' Motion for Amendment and Certification of Orders for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay Pending Appeal

    Filed September 12, 2013

    The Supreme Court has since dismissed the writ of certiorari as “improvidently granted.” First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2536, 183 L.Ed.2d 611 (2012). Perhaps the Supreme Court realized that reversing Edwards would create 2:12-cv-12831-GCS-RSW Doc # 52 Filed 09/12/13 Pg 15 of 22 Pg ID 855 9 claimed standing based on a violation of her “statutorily created right to truthful housing information.”

  5. Fox v. Time, Inc.

    MOTION Orders and for Stay re Memorandum Opinion & Order, Terminate Motions, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings,,, Defendants' Motion for Amendment and Certification of Orders for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay Pending Appeal

    Filed August 22, 2013

    Indeed, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on the very issue of whether mere statutory violation could satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement, before holding (months later) that it had improvidently granted certiorari. See First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, 132 S. Ct. 2536(2012); http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/ 10-708.pdf. The latest standing pronouncement from the Supreme Court, Hollingsworth, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2652, reiterates that Article III requires concrete injury-in-fact: “for a federal court to have authority under the Constitution to settle a dispute, the party before it must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm.”

  6. Nokchan v. Lyft, Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

    Filed July 1, 2016

    First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, 564 U.S. 1018 (2011), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 132 S. Ct. 2536 (2012) (per curiam). But the Supreme Court rejected that rule in Spokeo.

  7. Gullen v. Facebook, Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

    Filed June 30, 2016

    First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, 564 U.S. 1018 (2011), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 132 S. Ct. 2536 (2012) (per curiam). But in Spokeo, the Supreme Court rejected that rule.

  8. Patel v. Facebook, Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

    Filed June 29, 2016

    First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, 564 U.S. 1018 (2011), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 132 S. Ct. 2536 (2012) (per curiam). Plaintiffs’ amended complaint clearly was drafted with the Edwards standard in mind.

  9. Robert L. Meinders, D.C., LTD v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION to Stay the Case Pending the United States Supreme Court's Decision in Spokeo v. Robins

    Filed December 4, 2015

    On June 28, 2012, a year after granting certiorari and seven months after oral argument, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal “as improvidently granted” without explanation. 132 S. Ct. 2536, 2537 (2012). One commentator speculated the Justices could not “reach agreement on a workable constitutional test,” so the question would remain undecided “at least until the current membership of the Court changes.”

  10. Craftwood II Inc et al v. United Stationers Inc et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case 28

    Filed August 26, 2015

    A year after granting certiorari, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal “as improvidently granted” without further explanation. 132 S. Ct. 2536, 2537 (2012).