Author Topic: EXCELLENT, thorough, federal court ruling regarding the TCPA post Spokeo!  (Read 845 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 12207
She still thinks "standing" means you can't sit down in court. Standing means the Plaintiff has pled a viable cause of action which can be adjudicated by the court, based upon statutes etc. which are also properly pled.

Part of a Complaint is the prayer fro relief, in which the Plaintiff tells the court what they want. Therefore, entitlement to relief comes with standing.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9443
I think we are talking about having a prima facie case to establish standing to sue. 

It is essential if you want to heard, and easy to establish if you have the facts on your side.


BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2740
She still thinks "standing" means you can't sit down in court. Standing means the Plaintiff has pled a viable cause of action which can be adjudicated by the court, based upon statutes etc. which are also properly pled.


I understand that a plaintiff must adequately allege that he has standing to sue.  However, that's to avoid a 12(b) motion to dismiss.   

Even if a complaint sufficiently alleges standing and survives a 12(b) MTD, we know that, if challenged, the plaintiff must  PROVE it has standing to sue.  That has always been our argument in regard to JDB lawsuits.

Quote
Part of a Complaint is the prayer fro relief, in which the Plaintiff tells the court what they want. Therefore, entitlement to relief comes with standing.

That was my only point.  If you are not entitled to relief from the court, how can you have standing to sue?


Bruno the JDB Killer

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 12207
I understand that a plaintiff must adequately allege that he has standing to sue.  However, that's to avoid a 12(b) motion to dismiss.   

Even if a complaint sufficiently alleges standing and survives a 12(b) MTD, we know that, if challenged, the plaintiff must  PROVE it has standing to sue.  That has always been our argument in regard to JDB lawsuits.

That was my only point.  If you are not entitled to relief from the court, how can you have standing to sue?

It's just semantics. Standing refers to a cognizable cause of action. What you are talking about is proper party in interest. If you cannot prove ownership, you are not the proper party to bring suit, no matter how good your complaint is.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2740
It's just semantics. Standing refers to a cognizable cause of action. What you are talking about is proper party in interest. If you cannot prove ownership, you are not the proper party to bring suit, no matter how good your complaint is.

"Standing" is not merely a "cognizable cause of action".   The "cause of action" can be within the jurisdiction of the court, but if you are not the proper party to bring suit, you don't have standing to sue.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2016 11:04:25 PM by BellEbutton »

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 12207
Cognizable: capable of being judicially heard and determined.

That gets you in the door by filing a properly drafted complaint. Challenging the "standing" as you define it, which is actually proper party in interest, comes next. It is the Defendant's job to challenge the Plaintiff's right to sue.

The Supreme Court defined standing as having an interest in the controversy. The two terms are usually interchangeable.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9443
A well-formed complaint will carry the presumption that the plaintiff has standing to sue.  And a well-formed complaint will address the issue head-on in its preamble.

From there, it up to the defendant to address the standing issue with admissible evidence that the plaintiff is not a party-at-interest.

Spokeo does nothing to change this common-law concept.


 

credit