Partner M.C. Sungaila filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins, and she has also briefed post-Spokeo standing issues in Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic Inc. v. Molina Healthcare of California.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins, it is not enough for a plaintiff suing in federal court “to allege that a defendant has violated a right created by a statute.” Rather, to determine whether a plaintiff has standing to sue under Article III, a federal court must further “ascertain whether the plaintiff suffered a concrete injury-in-fact due to the violation.”
This Legal Opinion Letter discusses two developing post-Spokeo trends: (1) litigation of federal statutory claims in state courts, where standing requirements may differ from those under Article III; and (2) the application of Spokeo to dismiss state-law statutory claims in federal court.
Excerpted from a Washington Legal Foundation Legal Opinion Letter. To read the full letter, click here.