Lindsey v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc.
409 F. App'x 77
9th Cir.2010Background
- Lindsey appeals a district court order dismissing his §1981, Unruh Act, and contract claims for lack of standing.
- Panache Images is determined to be a California partnership under Cal. Corp. Code § 16202(a).
- Lindsey signed the contract with Westin in his capacity as director for Panache; only parties were Westin and Panache.
- Lindsey sued individually, asserting contractual and statutory rights, which the court treated as partnership-held claims.
- Court held Lindsey’s lack of standing is a merits defect, not a jurisdictional defect, and addressed Rule 17 substitution on remand.
- Court remanded to decide Lindsey’s Rule 17(a)(3) substitution of Panache as plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lindsey can sue for contract claims held by Panache. | Lindsey seeks rights flowing from contract as the signing party. | Panache, not Lindsey, holds the contractual rights. | Lindsey cannot state contract claims in his individual capacity. |
| Whether lack of standing is a jurisdictional defect or a merits defect. | Lindsey’s status taints the claim; jurisdiction should not be implicated. | Lack of contractual rights is a failure to state a claim, not jurisdiction. | Merits-based defect; not jurisdictional. |
| Whether Rule 17(a)(3) can cure lack of standing by substituting Panache as the plaintiff. | Rule 17 allows substitution to cure standing defects. | Substitution should be considered; court erred by not addressing it. | Rule 17 substitution is proper; remand to consider Panache as plaintiff. |
Key Cases Cited
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court 2006) (plaintiff must have rights under the contract to state §1981 claim)
- Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2009) (standing is a Merits question, not jurisdictional)
- Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 17 can cure lack of Article III standing in some contexts)
- Zurich Ins. Co. v. Logitrans, Inc., 297 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2002) (Rule 17 substitution discussions in context of standing)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdictional limits; absence of standing does not create jurisdiction)