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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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).