EARLE ASPHALT CO. v. COUNTY OF ATLANTIC, 1:21-cv-18355

Plaintiffs Earle Asphalt Co. (non‑union contractor), Luis Silverio (non‑union tradesman), and Associated Builders & Contractors New Jersey Chapter sued Atlantic County and the South Jersey Building and Construction Trades Council to challenge a project labor agreement (PLA) tied to the Lake Lenape Park renovation.
The PLA required recognition of signatory unions as exclusive bargaining representatives for on‑site craft employees and required hiring through union referral systems; only contractors accepting those terms could work on the Project.
Plaintiffs alleged the PLA has deterred and prevented them (and ABC NJ members) from obtaining County work, sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, and claimed constitutional and antitrust violations.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing (and partial mootness) and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims; the court treated the jurisdictional challenge as a facial attack.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of standing: plaintiffs failed to allege they would have bid or sought employment on the Lake Lenape Project (or identify a specific member who would), and New Jersey law requires PLAs be negotiated project‑by‑project, undermining any inference of a generalized, imminent harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing of Earle (past injury)	Earle was deterred/prevented from obtaining County work because of PLAs	No concrete past injury: Earle never alleged it bid or was denied on the Lake Lenape Project and "similar" past PLAs are undefined	No standing—allegations of deterrence without project‑specific facts insufficient
Standing of Earle (future injury)	Earle is able and ready to bid on future County projects and is likely to apply	Future PLAs are negotiated per project under NJ law; no showing PLAs like this will be imposed imminently	No standing—future harm not sufficiently imminent or particularized
Standing of Silverio (past & future)	Silverio alleges lost opportunities and would be compelled to use union hiring halls	Silverio did not apply for Project work or identify specific imminent projects where harm is certain	No standing—same deficiencies as Earle; inconvenience allegations speculative
Associational standing of ABC NJ	ABC NJ represents members deterred by PLAs and may seek prospective relief on their behalf	ABC NJ failed to identify at least one member who suffered or would imminently suffer a concrete injury	No associational standing—ABC NJ did not allege a specific member with standing

In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2017) (distinguishes facial and factual 12(b)(1) challenges and applicable standards)
Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2016) (facial vs factual attack under Rule 12(b)(1))
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury‑in‑fact must be concrete, particularized, and imminent)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (future injury must be certainly impending; speculative harms insufficient)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (concrete injury requirement for relief and forward‑looking claims)
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (past exposure to illegal conduct alone does not establish an ongoing case or controversy for injunctive relief)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (test for associational standing)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (an association must identify at least one member who has suffered or will suffer harm)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Iqbal three‑part pleading analysis)