444 F.Supp.3d 488
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- NPPA (a journalism trade organization) is the sole remaining plaintiff in a suit arising from Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests in NYC in 2011, alleging interference with press coverage and access to protest sites.
- NPPA identified two members relevant to the SAC: Stephanie Keith (arrested Oct. 1, 2011 on the Brooklyn Bridge; earlier encounter with Lt. Albano on Sept. 15, 2012) and Robert Stolarik (allegedly blocked from photographing an arrest at the Winter Garden on Dec. 12, 2011).
- NPPA alleges it expended time, money, and resources defending and advocating for members arrested or charged while covering OWS.
- Procedural posture: original suit filed 2012; NPPA added in FAC (Oct. 2012). By 2018 other plaintiffs settled/withdrawn; Court allowed limited amendment to assert organizational damages claim; NPPA filed SAC June 7, 2019; defendants moved to dismiss.
- NYPD issued a FINEST Message (Sept. 14, 2018) reminding officers not to interfere with properly credentialed press; NPPA cited this as evidence of ongoing risk.
- The district court resolved a standing challenge as threshold issue and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC for lack of standing and related jurisdictional defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organizational standing to seek injunctive/declaratory relief | NPPA spent resources defending members and the NYPD Message shows ongoing risk, supporting prospective relief | Expenditures are past harms; Message is non-specific and reflects a non-interference policy, not continuing violations | Dismissed — past expenditures do not support equitable relief; Message insufficient to show ongoing injury |
| Organizational standing to recover compensatory damages | Past expenditures in advocating/defending members constitute an injury-in-fact supporting damages | NPPA failed to plead specific, concrete expenditures or other facts to show a concrete injury | Dismissed — NPPA did not affirmatively allege particulars required to establish injury-in-fact for damages |
| Associational standing to sue on behalf of members under § 1983 and state claims | NPPA identified members (Keith, Stolarik) and seeks to vindicate members’ First Amendment rights | Keith settled and cannot supply a live injury; Stolarik’s claim would require individualized proof; Second Circuit law bars organizations asserting members’ § 1983 rights | Dismissed — associational standing lacking; § 1983 member claims cannot be asserted by an organization in this Circuit |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over New York State constitutional claims | NPPA invokes supplemental jurisdiction for state-law claims | Federal claims dismissed; considerations of comity and judicial economy counsel against retaining only state claims | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); state-based member claims dismissed from federal court |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements for plaintiffs invoking federal jurisdiction)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (organizational standing; associations may sue for their own injuries)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (associational standing test)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (requirement that organizations identify members who suffered or would suffer harm)
- Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377 (past litigation expenditures do not support prospective equitable relief; damages posture differs)
- Nnebe v. Daus, 644 F.3d 147 (organizational standing requires concrete injury; § 1983 rights are personal to injured individuals in this Circuit)
- Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locus Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay, 868 F.3d 104 (reaffirming Second Circuit rule limiting organizational assertion of members’ § 1983 rights)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (factors guiding decline of supplemental jurisdiction)