|
|
|
|
LAWSUIT RESEARCH SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION-STANDING: appellate review standard de novo
State of New York District Attorney Investigators Police Benevolent
Association, Inc. v. Richards, "The test for determining whether federal jurisdiction exists is whether the alleged cause of action is 'so patently without merit' as to justify dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, or stated another way, whether the right claimed is 'so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of [the Supreme] Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.' Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 70-71..., (1978) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 542-43... (1974) and Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666... (1974). In deciding the issue of jurisdiction it is not necessary to determine whether the cause of action is one on which the plaintiff could actually recover. Duke Power Co., 438 U.S. at 70, 98 S. Ct. at 2628.
... ------------
In Re: Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, United States Department of
Justice v. Francis T.... Pontarelli v. Stone, 978 F.2d 773 (1st Cir. 1992) it is the existence of a controversy that grants federal courts, district or appellate, the power to act. The lack of such a controversy deprives federal courts of authority to further exercise their authority, except as to incidental matters. Under the present circumstances, in which our intervention would be only of academic interest or advisory in nature, dismissal of appellant's appeal is obligatory. In the interest of maintaining judicial integrity, however, we are required to state what must already be known by appellant Schiff as an experienced practicing attorney. Appellant Schiff is not without a forum in which to make any claims that she may believe are justified regarding what she may perceive to be judicial misconduct. See 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) (Supp.1992). It is before the forum created by this statute that she should seek redress in any case involving alleged judicial misconduct. Needless to say, by so stating we do not pass judgment upon the merits of such a claim. We only rule that, for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is mooted and is thus not properly before us.
-- moot the appeal because of a final appealable order,
petitioners' made July 24, 2026 motion for vacatur
pursuant to FedRCivP 60(b), -- seeking to void it for lack of
jurisdiction
Secondly, to invoke
28 U.S.C. §
2106
------------------------
The Regulation of Judicial Ethics in the Federal System: A Peek Behind Closed Doors Hellman (2008) Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. | Oyez (2009)
"The-Institutional-Politics
of-Federal-Judicial-Conduct-Regulation &
here Williams v. Pennsylvania | Oyez (2016)
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law, Third Edition p. 101 When reviewing a trial judge’s disqualification, every court of appeals—with the occasional exception of the Seventh Circuit—uses a deferential, “abuse of discretion” standard in which findings of fact are typically accepted unless
ORDER : It is hereby: ORDERED that Plaintiffs
show cause, by no later than December 15, 2025, as to why their claims
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Spira
v. Trans Union, LLC, 21-CV-2367, 2022 WL 2189469 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2022)
(dismissing a complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 11/13/25) (yv)
Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C., CAN v. U.S, 14 F.3d 160 Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490, 498 (1975) Art. III's requirement remains: the plaintiff still must allege a distinct and palpable injury to himself, even if it is an injury shared by a large class of other possible litigants. E.g., United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669 (1973). But so long as this requirement is satisfied, persons to whom Congress has granted a right of action, either expressly or by clear implication, may have standing to seek relief on the basis of the legal rights and interests of others, and, indeed, may invoke the general public interest in support of their claim. E.g., Sierra Club v. Morton, supra at 405 U. S. 737; FCC v. Sanders Radio Station, 309 U. S. 470, 309 U. S. 477 (1940).
it is within the trial court's power to allow or to require the
plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the complaint or by affidavits,
further particularized allegations of fact deemed supportive of
plaintiff's standing. If, after this opportunity, t
he plaintiff's standing does not adequately appear from all materials of
record, the complaint must be dismissed.Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telcomms., S.a.r.l., 790 F3d 411, 416-17 (2d Cir. 2015) see also Alliance for Envtl. Renewal, Inc. v. Pyramid Crossgates Co., 436 F.3d 82, 88 n. 6 (2d Cir.2006) (“[T]he proper procedural route [for standing challenges at the pleadings stage] is a motion under Rule 12(b)(1).”). Others may benefit “collaterally” from a resolution favorable to the plaintiff, id. at 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197, or suffer from an unfavorable one, but the plaintiff's genuinely personal stake ensures the presence of “that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which [a] court so largely depends.” Baker, 369 U.S. at 204, 82 S.Ct. 691. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962) ). All. for Env't Renewal, Inc. v. Pyramid Crossgates Co., 436 F.3d 82, 88 n.6 (2d Cir. 2006)
Am.
Psychiatric Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc.,
821 F.3d 352, 358 (2d Cir. 2016)
Kokkonen
v. Guardian Life,
375, 377 (1995)
Frank v. Gaos,
586 U.S. 485, 490–91 (2019)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016).
Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)
Bell v. United States, No. 08-CV-632, 2008 WL 533543, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2008) Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 1997) Wright-Upshaw v. Nelson | 13-CV-3367 (ARR) (LB) | E.D.N.Y. (2014) Lattanzio v. Comta, 481 F.3d 137 (2d Cir) -WDW Brojer et al v. Kuriakose et al, No. 2:2011cv03156 - Document 6 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)
Singleton v. Wulff,
428 U.S. 106, 114 (1976)
Hollingsworth v. Perry,
570 U.S. 693, 707-08 (2013)
Allen v. Wright,
468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)
Port Auth. Police Benevolent Assoc. v. City of New York,
718 F.Supp. 3d 300, 308 (SDNY 2024)
Baur v. Veneman, 352
F.3d 625, 636-37 (2d Cir. 2003)
Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd.,
36 F.4th 68, 76 (2d Cir. 2022)
Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (citing Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 740 (1976); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)) Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Corp., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)) Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514 (1868); accord Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (same); see also In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 387–88 (2d Cir. 1997) Gonzalez v. Ocwen Home Loan Servicing, 74 F. Supp. 3d 504, 510–18 (D. Conn. 2015), affirmed sub nom Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 632 F. App’x 32 (2d Cir. 2016) Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, Brand v. AIG Insurance Co., No. 15-CV-6286, 2017 WL 10398480, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2017)
Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc. | 834 F.3d 220 | 2d Cir. | Judgment | Law |
CaseMine Standing & Probabilistic Injury "Injury In Fact, Transformed" by Cass R. Sunstein Injury In Fact, Transformed by Cass R. Sunstein :: SSRN Injury In Fact, Transformed - Harvard Law School | Harvard Law School
Lawrence B. Solum | University of Virginia School of Law Sunstein on the Injury-in-Fact Requirement for Standing – Legal Theory Blog
William Prosser, Law of Torts (2d ed. 1955).
Grounding the Party Presentation Principle by Owen Smitherman :: SSRN Smitherman on a General Law Grounding for the Party Presentation Principle – Legal Theory Blog
|
|
|
|
CJA Ho |
|
|
Post Office Box 8101 |
