Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02124/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02124-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 39:409 Postal Service

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This case was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLIANCE FOR A BETTER )

CALIFORNIA, ) 

) 2:05-cv-2124-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; )

JOE G. ZAPATA, United States )

Postmaster for the Santa Ana )

Main Office, )

 )

Defendants. )

 )

Plaintiff Alliance for a Better California (“Alliance”)

moves for summary judgment and/or partial summary adjudication. 

Defendants oppose the motion and move to dismiss Alliance’s Amended

Complaint (“Complaint”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

or, in the alternative, for summary judgment or partial summary

adjudication. Alliance opposes the motion. For the following

reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and therefore the

summary judgment motions need not be decided. 

Case 2:05-cv-02124-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The Complaint alleges that “[b]oth GSCRT and CRT [are the 1

same entity and] were formed to support and further the agenda of

Governor Schwarzenegger, and both have been described as [his]

‘political committee.’” (Compl. ¶ 9.)

2

BACKGROUND 

Alliance is a general purpose California political committee

that was active in the November 2005 special elections. Alliance

planned to campaign in support of or in opposition to certain ballot

measures considered by California voters in June and November 2006. 

(Compl. ¶ 4.) Defendant United States Postal Service (“USPS”) is the

federal agency responsible for administering the United States mailing

system. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant Joe G. Zapata is the United States Post

Master for the Santa Ana Mail Post Office and is being sued in his

official capacity only. (Id. ¶ 6.) 

Alliance challenges Defendants’ decision authorizing the

California Recovery Team (CRT), a political committee formed by

California Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Recovery Team

(GSCRT), to post political mail at the Nonprofit Standard Mail 1

(“NSM”) rate. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 7-8.) NSM rates are reduced mailing rates

granted by USPS. Under federal law, only certain qualifying entities

are entitled to NSM rates, including “qualified political committees”

and “qualified nonprofit organizations.” (Id. ¶¶ 22-23.) In

September 2004, GSCRT was granted NSM rate authorization as a

nonprofit philanthropic organization. (Pl.’s Mot. at 4.) 

In October 2005, Alliance became aware that CRT was using

the NSM rate to send political mail supporting Proposition 75, a

measure on the November 2005 ballot. (Compl. ¶ 33.) Alliance

subsequently filed a complaint with USPS in which it requested

Defendants to revoke or cancel CRT’s NSM rate authorization. (Id.

Case 2:05-cv-02124-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 39 U.S.C. § 403(c) provides: “In providing services and in 2

establishing classifications, rates and fees under this title, the

Postal Service shall not, except as specifically authorized in this

title, make any undue or unreasonable discrimination among users of

the mails, nor shall it grant any undue or unreasonable preferences to

such users.” 

 39 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2) provides: “For purposes of this 3

subsection–(A) the term ‘qualified political committee’ means a

national or State committee of a political party, the Republican and

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committees, the Democratic National

Congressional Committee, and the National Republican Congressional

Committee; (B) the term ‘national committee’ means the organization

which, by virtue of the bylaws of a political party, is responsible

for the day-to-day operation of such political party at the national

level; and (C) the term ‘State committee’ means the organization

which, by virtue of the bylaws of a political party, is responsible

for the day-to-day operation of such political party at the State

level.” 

3

¶ 38.) Thereafter, USPS conducted an investigation of CRT’s use of

the NSM rate. (Id. ¶ 41.) Alliance avers that in January 2006, USPS

determined that CRT’s NSM rate should not be revoked since it is a

“philanthropic organization.” (Id. ¶ 45.) 

Alliance claims that USPS’ grant of NSM rate authorization

to GSCRT is contrary to federal law since “GSCRT embodies none of the

attributes of a qualifying philanthropic organization and is instead 

a purely political organization.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) In particular,

Alliance alleges USPS violated 39 U.S.C. § 403(c) when it issued NSM 2

rate authorization to CRT, because CRT is not entitled to such

authorization under federal law, and the “authorization constitutes an

‘undue or unreasonable discrimination among users of the mail’ or an

‘undue or unreasonable preference[]’ within the meaning [§ 403(c)].” 

(Id. ¶ 50.) Alliance also alleges that issuance of the NSM rate

violated 39 U.S.C. § 3626(e) because “CRT is a political committee 3

but is not a ‘qualified’ political committee within that provision.” 

(Id. ¶ 51.) 

Case 2:05-cv-02124-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Although Defendants appear to argue their motion under an 4

alternative Rule 12(b)(1) standard, Defendants have not explained why

that standard should be used. 

4

Alliance claims that “USPS . . . has failed to enforce its

regulations concerning [NSM] rate authorization.” (Id. ¶ 53.) 

Finally, Alliance alleges that USPS violated the First and Fifth

Amendments by providing CRT with the authority to use the NSM rate

because “it improperly involves government subsidization of political

activity which is not available to other political organizations and

discriminates against other similarly situated political

organizations, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff.” (Id. ¶ 55.) 

DISCUSSION

Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when either

Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to confer

subject matter jurisdiction or there is no subject matter jurisdiction

in fact. Thornhill Publishing Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp.,

594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). “In a facial attack [under Rule

12(b)(1)], the challenger asserts that the facts alleged in the

complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal

jurisdiction” and all allegations of material fact in the Complaint

must be accepted as true. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 4

1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004); National Licensing Association, LLC v.

Inland Joseph Fruit Company, 361 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1247 (E.D. Wash.

2004) (citing Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir.

1987). 

Defendants argue that Alliance does not have standing to

bring this claim because it has not suffered a cognizable injury. 

(Defs.’ Opp’n and Mot. to Dismiss at 12.) Alliance states that it

Case 2:05-cv-02124-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 12/04/06 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

“meets the constitutional standing requirements because it is a

political competitor of CRT and has alleged an injury traceable to

USPS’ bestowal of an undue mail rate preference on CRT.” (Pl.’s Mot.

at 19.) 

Under Article III of the Constitution, “federal courts have

jurisdiction over [a] dispute . . . only if it is a ‘case’ or

‘controversy.’” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997) (internal

citations omitted). “[S]tanding is an essential and unchanging part

of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.” Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). “To meet the

standing requirements of Article III, ‘[a] plaintiff must allege

personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s alleged unlawful

conduct [that is] likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” 

Id. (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)). “[W]hen the

plaintiff is not [it]self the object of the government action or

inaction [it] challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is

ordinarily ‘substantially more difficult’ to establish.” Id. at 562

(internal citations omitted). 

Alliance’s alleged injury is not “fairly traceable to the

challenged action of the defendant[s]” because Alliance does not

allege in its Complaint that it applied to USPS for the NSM rate.

Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. The Supreme Court reached an analogous result

in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 226 (2003), where the plaintiffs

challenged § 307 of the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) which

increased campaign contribution limits. Certain plaintiffs contended

they were injured by this increase since “[t]heir [political]

candidates ‘d[id] not wish to solicit or accept large campaign

contributions as permitted by BCRA’” and the “increased . . . limits

Case 2:05-cv-02124-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 12/04/06 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

allow[ed] plaintiffs-candidates’ opponents to raise more money, and,

consequently, the plaintiffs-candidates’ ability to compete or

participate in the electoral process [was] diminished.” Id. at 228. 

The Supreme Court held this claimed injury was not shown “‘fairly

traceable’ to BCRA § 307” because the plaintiffs’ “alleged inability

to compete stem[med] not from the operation of § 307, but from their

own personal ‘wish’ not to solicit or accept large contributions,

i.e., their personal choice.” Id. 

Since Alliance has not shown its injury is “fairly traceable

to the challenged action of the defendant[s]” it has not shown it has

standing to maintain this action. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.

For the stated reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss this

action is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 4, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02124-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 12/04/06 Page 6 of 6