No. 12-2143-STA | W.D. Tenn. | Jun 21, 2012
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendants Democratic National Committee, Tennessee Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Chip Forrester’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) (D.E. # 4) filed on March 1, 2012. Plaintiffs Liberty Legal Foundation, John Dummett, Leonard Volodarsky, and Creg Maroney have filed a response in opposition.
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Chancery Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, on October 26, 2011.
In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims and that even if they did have the requisite standing, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. According to Defendants, Plaintiff Maroney has alleged only that he is a private citizen who is injured in his status as a voter. Thus, Maroney has not alleged that he has suffered an injury-in-fact that would give him standing to bring this suit. As for Plaintiffs Dummett and Volodarsky, Defendants argue that their status as possible presidential candidates does not give them standing because their prospects for election are theoretical at best. Defendants further contend that a candidate for President of the United States will not suffer an injury-in-fact resulting from President Obama appearing on Tennessee’s ballot until such time as Tennessee’s electoral votes are allotted. As a result, the injuries alleged by Plaintiffs Dummett and Volodarsky are speculative at this point. With respect to Plaintiff Liberty Legal Foundation, Defendants argue that this organization cannot establish associational standing in this case. The Amended Complaint does not allege that any of this organization’s members have standing. As such, the organization itself lacks standing to bring this suit. Defendants go on to argue that the interests which Liberty Legal Foundation seeks to protect, i.e. the right to have a constitutionally-qualified candidate on the ballot, are not germane to the organization’s stated mission to defend “basic human rights.” For all of these reasons, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action. Therefore, the Court should dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(1).
Even if the Court determined that Plaintiffs had standing, Defendants maintain that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). First, Defendants argue that a federal lawsuit is not the proper vehicle to challenge a candidate’s qualifications for office. Rather this task is reserved for the electorate and the United States Congress. In other words, Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted under fed
In their response in opposition, Plaintiffs argue that they have standing and that their Amended Complaint states a claim for relief. Plaintiffs begin by discussing their theory about President Obama’s citizenship and why they believe he is not qualified for his office. With respect to their standing, Plaintiffs argue that Plaintiff Dummett has competitive standing to bring these claims because he is a candidate for President of the United States. Plaintiffs also argue that Liberty Legal Foundation has associational standing in this case because advocating the enforcement of the U.S. Constitution is consistent with defending “basic human rights.” Plaintiffs assert that “[bjecause Plaintiff Dummett has standing, all other Plaintiffs in the instant case, including Liberty Legal Foundation, also have standing.” Pis.’ Resp. in Opp’n 8 (D.E. # 19).
As for the merits of the allegations in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs contend that federal law governing the process for counting the votes in the Electoral College does not preempt state law governing the selection of electors. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants have essentially asked the Court to abdicate its role in construing the Constitution in favor of allowing the people to choose whomever they wish. Plaintiffs assert that they are not challenging the Defendants’ right to select their own candidate but their right to misrepresent facts about their candidate’s qualifications for office. Regarding the allegations of reliance, Plaintiffs admit that Defendants have allegedly misrepresented facts to a non-party, the Tennessee Secretary of State. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations have damaged them.
In their reply, Defendants restate their position that Plaintiffs lack standing. Specifically with respect to Plaintiff Dummett, Defendants concede that Dummett is a candidate in Tennessee for the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States. As such, Plaintiff Dummett is not a competitive opponent of President Obama in any election and accordingly cannot establish that he has competitive standing to bring this suit. Furthermore, Defendants assert that Plaintiff Dummett has not taken steps to appear on a ballot in the state of Tennessee. For these reasons, Plaintiff Dummett cannot establish an injury-in-fact in this case. The reply brief goes on to restate Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal law, that Plaintiffs have not properly pleaded reliance, and that the Tennessee Democratic Party will not actually certify that President Obama is qualified for office, only that he is the party’s
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defendants challenge Plaintiffs’ standing in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) as well as argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a substantive claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Where a defendant challenges a plaintiffs standing to bring suit, the Court should first consider whether it has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) before it considers the substantive merits of a pleading pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
As for the merits of Plaintiffs’ pleadings, a defendant may move to dismiss a claim “for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must treat all of the well-pled allegations of the complaint as true and construe all of the allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
ANALYSIS
I. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Response
On May 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Response (D.E. # 24). As grounds for their Motion, Plaintiffs argue that they have learned of relevant precedent that was not previously disclosed to the Court, apparently an order of dismissal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dated January 20, 2012. However, Plaintiffs have not shown why this precedent was not available at the time they filed their response brief. Plaintiffs further assert that Defendants’ reply raises arguments which were not previously raised by either party and that the reply misrepresents relevant authority. Plaintiffs’s Motion does not specify what novel arguments were presented in the reply brief or how the reply brief misrepresented any legal authority. Plaintiffs have attached their proposed “supplemental response” to the Motion as well as the following exhibits: a document purporting to be Plaintiff Dummett’s certificate of write-in candidacy as a candidate for President of the United States in Tennessee’s general election; a document purporting to be a copy of the Tennessee Democratic Party’s by-laws; and the order of dismissal from the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion is not well-taken. Even though Plaintiffs label the brief they seek leave to file a “supplemental response,” Plaintiffs are in fact seeking leave to file a sur-reply. As many courts have noted, “[s]ur-replies ... are highly disfavored, as they usually are a strategic effort by the nonmoving party to have the last word on a matter.”
What is more, the Court finds that it is Plaintiffs proposed sur-reply that seeks improperly to raise new argument on the standing issue and introduce evidence that was not previously before the Court. In the proposed sur-reply, Plaintiffs state that Plaintiff Dummett has established competitive standing because he is a write-in candidate for President in Tennessee’s general election in the fall. Plaintiffs have attached a document purporting to be a certificate of write-in candidacy and requesting that write-in ballots cast for John A. Dummett, Jr. of Forest Hill, California, be counted in the November 6, 2012, general election in Tennessee.
II. Standing
The Court now considers Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiffs’ standing to assert their state law tort claims. Standing is “the threshold question in every federal case.”
In this instance, Defendants’ Motion is based on the allegations of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, making Defendants’ a facial challenge to standing. In order to establish standing to bring their state law tort claims and survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs need only meet the minimal “core constitutional” standing requirements to present an Article III “case and controversy.”
Accepting the allegations of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as true, the Court holds that Plaintiffs have failed to plead the elements of standing with specificity. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs posit that “[b]ecause Plaintiff Dummett has standing, all other Plaintiffs in the instant case, including Liberty Legal Foundation, also have standing.” The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ theory actually misstates the
A. Standing as Political Candidates
Plaintiffs have argued in their response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss that political candidates such as Plaintiff Dummett have standing to bring claims against Defendants.
Based on the Amended Complaint, the Court holds that Plaintiffs Dummett and Volodarsky lack standing in their capacity as political candidates to bring their claims. The Amended Complaint fails to plead specific facts showing that Dummett or Volodarsky has or will suffer an injury-in-fact of any kind. It is true that many courts, including the Ninth Circuit in Drake, have concluded that a candidate for political office has standing to challenge the qualifications of another candidate under a competitive standing theory.
B. Standing as Concerned Citizens
The other individual Plaintiff named in the Amended Complaint is Plaintiff Maroney. The Amended Complaint refers to Plaintiff Maroney only as an American citizen
It is well-settled that a plaintiff lacks standing “to challenge laws of general application where their own injury is not distinct from that suffered in general by other taxpayers or citizens.”
C. Associational Standing of Liberty Legal Foundation
The only remaining named Plaintiff then is Liberty Legal Foundation. According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Liberty Legal Foundation is a registered 501(c)(3) charitable organization with a mission to “[sjtrategically challenge flawed court precedent to restore the Constitution and individual liberties.”
Based on the specific allegations of the Amended Complaint, the Court holds that Plaintiff Liberty Legal Foundation lacks standing to bring its claims. An association has standing to sue on behalf of its members when “its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.”
III. Request to Amend the Complaint
In their response in opposition, Plaintiffs have made an alternative request for leave to file a second amended complaint.
The Court holds that none of the named Plaintiffs have alleged specific facts to demonstrate their standing to bring this suit. As a result, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
. Defendants have argued in other filings with the Court that Defendant National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. is not a proper party to this action and is perhaps a "sham” organization contrived to obtain venue in Shelby County, Tennessee. See Defs.’ Mem. in Support Mot. Dismiss 1 n. 1 (D.E. # 5). To date this Defendant has not answered or otherwise appeared to defend in this matter.
. Defendants Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz have filed their own motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) (D.E. # 6). Defendant Chip Forrester has filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) (D.E. # 8). Because standing is a threshold issue in every federal case and because the Court holds that Plaintiffs lack standing in this matter, the Court need not reach these separate Rule 12(b) motions.
. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint while this matter was pending before the Shelby County Chancery Court.
. Plaintiffs alternatively seek leave to amend their amended complaint for the purpose of adding a tort claim for simple negligence.
. Defendants' consolidated reply brief also includes other arguments related to the separate motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Chip Forrester. Because the Court finds it unnecessary to reach those issues, it does not discuss Defendants' arguments here.
. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1946-04-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/bell-v-hood-104272?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="104272">327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); Coal Operators and Assoc., Inc. v. Babbitt, 291 F.3d 912" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2002-06-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/coal-operators-and-associates-inc-phelps-coal-and-land-co-and-roy-seagraves-v-bruce-babbitt-in-his-official-capacity-as-secretary-of-the-interior-777806?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="777806">291 F.3d 912 (6th Cir.2002).
. Coal Operators, 291 F.3d 912" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2002-06-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/coal-operators-and-associates-inc-phelps-coal-and-land-co-and-roy-seagraves-v-bruce-babbitt-in-his-official-capacity-as-secretary-of-the-interior-777806?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="777806">291 F.3d at 916; Rogers v. Stratton Industries, Inc., 798 F.2d 913" court="6th Cir." date_filed="1986-08-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/james-h-rogers-plaintiff-appellant-v-stratton-industries-inc-fred-s-almy-and-de-stolberg-defendants-appellees-474867?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="474867">798 F.2d 913, 915 (6th Cir.1986).
. DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2004-10-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/dlx-inc-v-commonwealth-of-kentucky-787520?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="787520">381 F.3d 511, 516 (6th Cir.2004).
. Id.
. Id.
. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2007-08-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/league-of-united-latin-american-citizens-v-bredesen-1193637?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1193637">500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir.2007).
. Wittstock v. Mark A. Van Sile, Inc., 330 F.3d 899" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2003-06-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/joseph-a-wittstock-iii-v-mark-a-van-sile-inc-782144?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="782144">330 F.3d 899, 902 (6th Cir.2003).
. Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10" court="6th Cir." date_filed="1987-09-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/carolyn-morgan-v-churchs-fried-chicken-494238?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="494238">829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir.1987).
. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2007-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/bell-atlantic-corp-v-twombly-145730?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145730">550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2007-06-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/erickson-v-pardus-145722?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145722">551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007).
. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2009-05-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ashcroft-v-iqbal-145875?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145875">556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. 544" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2007-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/bell-atlantic-corp-v-twombly-145730?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145730">550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. See also
. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2009-05-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ashcroft-v-iqbal-145875?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145875">556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937; Twombly, 550 U.S. 544" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2007-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/bell-atlantic-corp-v-twombly-145730?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145730">550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2009-05-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ashcroft-v-iqbal-145875?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145875">556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
. In re Enron Corp. Secs., 465 F. Supp. 2d 687" court="S.D. Tex." date_filed="2006-12-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/in-re-enron-corporation-securities-2431480?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2431480">465 F.Supp.2d 687, 691 n. 4 (S.D.Tex.2006); see also Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard Corp., 189 F.R.D. 655" court="D. Kan." date_filed="1999-11-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/cotracom-commodity-trading-co-v-seaboard-corp-8728142?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8728142">189 F.R.D. 655, 659 (D.Kan.1999) ("The court generally grants leave to file a post-reply brief only in extraordinary circumstances after showing of good cause.”) (citation omitted).
. Modesty v. Shockley, 434 Fed.Appx. 469, 472 (6th Cir.2011) (citing Seay v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 339 F.3d 454" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2003-08-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/clarence-seay-jr-v-tennessee-valley-authority-craven-crowell-783068?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="783068">339 F.3d 454, 481-82 (6th Cir.2003)).
. Pls.’ Mot. Leave to File Supp. Resp. (D.E. # 24-2).
. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1975-06-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/warth-v-seldin-109301?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="109301">422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).
. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1982-01-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/valley-forge-christian-college-v-americans-united-for-separation-of-church-and-state-inc-110599?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="110599">454 U.S. 464, 473, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982) (quoting United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1973-06-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-students-challenging-regulatory-agency-procedures-scrap-108824?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108824">412 U.S. 669, 687, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973)).
. McGlone v. Bell, 681 F.3d 718" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2012-04-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/john-mcglone-v-robert-bell-2981021?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2981021">681 F.3d 718, 728 (6th Cir.2012) (citing Rosen v. Tenn. Comm’r Fin. & Admin., 288 F.3d 918" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2002-05-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/michael-rosen-barbara-huskey-emanuel-martin-v-tennessee-commissioner-of-finance-777494?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="777494">288 F.3d 918, 927 (6th Cir.2002)).
. Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1972-12-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/trafficante-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-108640?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="108640">409 U.S. 205, 209, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 (1972); DeBolt v. Espy, 47 F.3d 777" court="6th Cir." date_filed="1995-05-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/suella-debolt-v-michael-espy-689152?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="689152">47 F.3d 777, 779-80 (6th Cir.1995); Smith v. City of Cleveland Heights, 760 F.2d 720" court="6th Cir." date_filed="1985-05-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/william-h-smith-v-city-of-cleveland-heights-451569?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="451569">760 F.2d 720, 721 (6th Cir.1985).
. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1984-09-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/allen-v-wright-111258?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="111258">468 U.S. 737, 752-53, 104 S. Ct. 3315" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1984-09-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/allen-v-wright-111258?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="111258">104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) (quoting Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. 464" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1982-01-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/valley-forge-christian-college-v-americans-united-for-separation-of-church-and-state-inc-110599?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="110599">454 U.S. at 472, 102 S.Ct. 752).
. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1982-02-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/havens-realty-corp-v-coleman-110654?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="110654">455 U.S. 363, 372, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982).
. Nader v. Blackwell, 545 F.3d 459" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2008-10-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/nader-v-blackwell-1196307?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1196307">545 F.3d 459, 471 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1998-03-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/steel-co-v-citizens-for-a-better-environment-2620886?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2620886">523 U.S. 83, 103, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (internal quotation marks and parentheses omitted)).
. Id.
. Am. Canoe Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Louisa Water & Sewer Com’n, 389 F.3d 536" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2004-11-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/american-canoe-association-incorporated-sierra-club-v-city-of-louisa-water--sewer-commission-louisa-water-treatment-plant-city-of-louisa-kentucky-788377?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="788377">389 F.3d 536, 542 (6th Cir.2004) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1992-06-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lujan-v-defenders-of-wildlife-112747?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="112747">504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1992-06-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lujan-v-defenders-of-wildlife-112747?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="112747">112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)).
. Nader, 545 F.3d 459" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2008-10-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/nader-v-blackwell-1196307?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1196307">545 F.3d at 471 (citations omitted).
. Rumsfeld, v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2006-03-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/rumsfeld-v-forum-for-academic-and-institutional-rights-inc-145672?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145672">547 U.S. 47, 52 n. 2, 126 S. Ct. 1297" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2006-03-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/rumsfeld-v-forum-for-academic-and-institutional-rights-inc-145672?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145672">126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006).
. See ACLU v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 644" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2007-07-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/american-civil-liberties-union-v-national-security-agency-1249043?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1249043">493 F.3d 644, 657 (6th Cir.2007) ("[T]he standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint's allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted.”) (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. 737" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1984-09-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/allen-v-wright-111258?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="111258">468 U.S. at 752, 104 S.Ct. 3315).
. As discussed herein, the Amended Complaint also alleges that Plaintiff Volodarsky is a candidate for President of the United States. It is not clear to the Court why Plaintiffs pin their standing argument only on the candidacy of Plaintiff Dummett.
. Drake, 664 F.3d 774" court="9th Cir." date_filed="2011-05-02" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/nordyke-v-king-215841?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="215841">664 F.3d at 782 (quoting Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63" court="D.N.H." date_filed="2008-07-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hollander-v-mccain-2397288?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2397288">566 F.Supp.2d 63, 68 (D.N.H.2008)).
. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 31, 36.
. Id. ¶¶ 33, 38, 49, 50.
. E.g. Tex. Dem. Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582" court="5th Cir." date_filed="2006-08-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/texas-democratic-party-v-benkiser-44626?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="44626">459 F.3d 582, 586-87 & n. 4 (5th Cir.2006); Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48" court="2d Cir." date_filed="1994-12-27" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/robert-schulz-dorothy-louise-brokaw-william-van-allen-lloyd-wright-libertarian-party-of-new-york-v-jerry-williams-michael-long-686429?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="686429">44 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir.1994); Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028" court="7th Cir." date_filed="1991-01-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lenora-fulani-v-joseph-hogsett-550704?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="550704">917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir.1990).
. Plaintiffs’ allegation that President Obama’s presence on the general election ballot would take away votes they would have received is simply not supported with any plausible factual allegations. It appears to the Court that Plaintiffs' allegation presupposes that the Court would enjoin President Obama from appearing on the ballot in the November 2012 election and that the Democratic Parly would not nominate another candidate to be its standard bearer.
. Nader, 545 F.3d 459" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2008-10-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/nader-v-blackwell-1196307?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1196307">545 F.3d at 471.
. Even if arguendo Plaintiff Dummett had alleged his write-in status in the Amended Complaint, the possibility of an injury-in-fact to a write-in candidate for President of the United States is too "conjectural or hypothetical” to establish standing. Nader, 545 F.3d 459" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2008-10-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/nader-v-blackwell-1196307?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1196307">545 F.3d at 471. The allegation that an individual from California who is a merely declared write-in candidate in Tennessee is, without additional factual support, too speculative to show injury-in-fact. ACLU v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 644" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2007-07-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/american-civil-liberties-union-v-national-security-agency-1249043?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1249043">493 F.3d at 656-57.
. The Amended Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff Maroney is a citizen of the state of Tennessee or any other state.
. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 41, 42.
. Id. ¶ 43.
. Unlike the other named Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Maroney's standing to bring suit is not specifically addressed in the section of the Amended Complaint with the heading "standing.”
. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2007-06-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hein-v-freedom-from-religion-foundation-inc-145704?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145704">551 U.S. 587, 598, 127 S.Ct. 2553, 168 L.Ed.2d 424 (2007) (quoting ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1989-05-30" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/asarco-inc-v-kadish-112268?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="112268">490 U.S. 605, 613, 109 S.Ct. 2037, 104 L.Ed.2d 696 (1989)).
. Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2007-03-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lance-v-coffman-145753?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145753">549 U.S. 437, 442, 127 S.Ct. 1194, 167 L.Ed.2d 29 (2007) (per curiam) (holding that voters challenging state law on grounds that it conflicted with the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution lacked standing). See also Johnson v. Bredesen, 356 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (6th Cir.2009) (holding that citizens had not alleged injury-in-fact to support standing for their claim that the state of Tennessee was violating the Fourteenth Amendment).
. Wuliger v. Manuf. Life Ins. Co., 567 F.3d 787" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2009-05-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/wuliger-v-manufacturers-life-insurance-1207911?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1207911">567 F.3d 787, 793 (6th Cir.2009).
. Id. (citation omitted).
. Id. (quotation omitted).
. Am. Compl. ¶ 26.
. Id. ¶ 27. In fact, the Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs Dummett and Volodarsky, who are declared presidential candidates, are members of Liberty Legal Foundation.
. Id. ¶ 49.
. Id.
. ACLU v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 644" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2007-07-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/american-civil-liberties-union-v-national-security-agency-1249043?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1249043">493 F.3d at 694 (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2000-01-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/friends-of-the-earth-inc-v-laidlaw-environmental-services-toc-inc-118329?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="118329">528 U.S. 167, 181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000)).
. Pls.' Resp. in Opp’n 14 (D.E. # 19).
. Evans v. Pearson Enter., Inc., 434 F.3d 839" court="6th Cir." date_filed="2006-01-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/evans-v-pearson-enterprises-inc-2973246?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2973246">434 F.3d 839, 853 (6th Cir.2006) (citations omitted).
. Id.
. Id. (citing Confederate Mem. Ass’n, Inc. v. Hines, 995 F.2d 295" court="D.C. Cir." date_filed="1993-09-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/confederate-memorial-association-inc-john-edward-hurley-and-mrs-john-tilden-rogers-v-richard-t-hines-608806?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="608806">995 F.2d 295, 299 (D.C.Cir.1993)).