1:16-cv-10297
D. Mass.Jun 23, 2022Background
- This MDL consolidates over eighty actions alleging unlawful conduct by DraftKings and FanDuel and their payment processors; Steiner’s suit was one of the transferred cases.
- Steiner (Florida resident) never had an account with DraftKings or FanDuel and alleges no personal participation or monetary loss from the defendants’ services.
- He filed originally in Florida state court asserting he sued as a private attorney general "for the use and benefit of the State of Florida" under Fla. statute (alleging illegal gambling harms the state).
- DraftKings removed the case to federal court in the Middle District of Florida; the JPML transferred the action to the District of Massachusetts and consolidated it into the Master Complaint.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing Steiner lacks Article III standing because he suffered no concrete injury.
- The district court agreed Steiner lacked Article III standing, and, finding no discretion to dismiss rather than remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), remanded the case to the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — injury in fact | Steiner contends he may sue as a private representative to enforce Florida law on the State's behalf | Defendants argue Steiner alleges no personal injury and thus lacks Article III standing | Court: No Article III standing; Steiner alleges no distinct, personal injury (Warth/Spokeo framework) |
| Proper disposition after lack of jurisdiction | Steiner urges remand to state court | Defendants briefly sought dismissal with prejudice, arguing lack of state-court standing too | Court: Remand required under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c); dismissal is improper in lieu of remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (standing requires a concrete, particularized injury)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (standing is threshold jurisdictional inquiry)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (plaintiff must have a personal stake in the controversy)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury)
- Reddy v. Foster, 845 F.3d 493 (1st Cir. 2017) (Article III standing standard applied in First Circuit)
- Me. Ass’n of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Comm’r, Me. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 876 F.2d 1051 (1st Cir. 1989) (§1447(c) requires remand when jurisdiction is lacking)
- Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (1991) (district court lacks discretion to dismiss instead of remanding under §1447(c))