Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85714
W.D. Tenn.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sue in Tennessee federal court against DNC, Tennessee Democratic Party, Wasserman Schultz, and Forrester over alleged misrepresentations to the Tennessee Secretary of State that Obama is their presidential nominee and qualified for office.
- Plaintiffs claim the misrepresentations render Obama not a natural-born citizen and seek injunctive relief and damages for negligent and intentional misrepresentation.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court on federal-question grounds; district court later denied remand.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; arguments address standing of each named plaintiff and associational standing of Liberty Legal Foundation.
- The court conducts a standing analysis for each plaintiff and concludes none have standing; accordingly, Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal is warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue for state-law claims | Plaintiffs Dummett, Volodarsky, Maroney, and Liberty L.F. have standing | Plaintiffs lack injury-in-fact or associational standing; injuries are speculative or generalized | Standing lacking; 12(b)(1) dismissal granted |
| Standing of Dummett and Volodarsky as candidates | Dummett and Volodarsky have competitive standing as presidential candidates | No concrete or imminent injury; no actual ballot competition pleaded | Dummett and Volodarsky lack standing |
| Standing of Maroney as a concerned citizen | Maroney acts as a representative of all concerned citizens | Injury is undifferentiated general grievance; lacks Article III and prudential standing | Maroney lacks standing |
| Associational standing of Liberty Legal Foundation | Members have standing; action furthers foundation’s mission to enforce Constitution | No member standing shown; bare allegation insufficient | Liberty Legal Foundation lacks associational standing |
| Leave to amend the complaint | Request to amend to add simple negligence if misrepresentation theory fails | Amendment not properly pleaded; sur-reply improper | Motion to amend denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court 1946) (standing threshold and jurisdiction principles)
- Coal Operators and Assoc., Inc. v. Babbitt, 291 F.3d 912 (6th Cir. 2002) (standing and jurisdiction considerations)
- DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2004) (standing and pleading standards)
- League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2007) (standing and associational standing principles)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; plausibility requirement)