BGN Development Corporation v. Moosic Borough, 3:23-cv-01658

Plaintiffs BGN Development Corporation and Lynn Kokinda sued to challenge the approval and development process for the Vesper Northeast Logistics Park, a proposed large warehouse project in Moosic Borough and Pittston Township, Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs allege injuries related to lack of notice and participation in local decision-making regarding the project and potential future negative impacts to their properties (traffic, environment, safety, sewerage).
The case was originally filed in Pennsylvania state court and removed to federal court, where various defendants moved to dismiss.
The primary motion to dismiss, brought by the Moosic Defendants, argued lack of standing and ripeness because no final project approval had occurred; necessary permits and decisions remained pending.
The federal court, addressing jurisdiction first, found that plaintiffs’ alleged harms were speculative and not actual or imminent due to the project's uncertain status (only "conditional approval" had been granted; permits unresolved).
The Complaint was dismissed without prejudice but plaintiffs were allowed an opportunity to amend for standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing – injury-in-fact	Project will negatively impact their properties and they were denied input.	No actual or imminent harm; all harms are speculative until final approval.	No standing: Alleged injuries are hypothetical and not "certainly impending."
Ripeness	Rights already deprived by lack of notice and participation; approvals show project will proceed.	Claims are premature; no final agency or zoning decision yet.	Not ripe: Claims are contingent on future, uncertain events.
Finality Rule in land use cases	Conditional approvals and variances are enough to challenge now.	No final, definitive governmental position or approvals exist.	No finality: Project is stalled; legal challenge is premature.
Leave to Amend	Should be permitted to amend if complaint is deficient.	(No argument addressed in opinion)	Leave granted: Amendment not futile under 3rd Cir. precedent.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181 (finding standing where a granted variance created imminent harm)
Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm. v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (finality requirement for ripeness in land-use/§1983 suits)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (standing as a threshold for federal jurisdiction)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for pleading factual sufficiency)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requirements for plausible claims)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts’ limited subject-matter jurisdiction)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (basis for federal question jurisdiction)
Pub. Interest Research Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron, Inc., 123 F.3d 111 (imminence requirement for standing in environmental context)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (standing as a threshold for federal jurisdiction)