Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05285/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05285-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5285 September Term, 2015

1:14-cv-00880-BAH

Filed On: August 10, 2016

Donna Hand,

Appellant

v.

Thomas E. Perez, Secretary, Department of

Labor, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Rogers, Kavanaugh, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges

J UD G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 5, 2015 be

affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of an Article III

case or controversy. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968). “‘[T]he oldest and

most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that the federal courts will not

give advisory opinions.’” Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. v. FERC, 783 F.3d 1270, 1274

(D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. at 96). Moreover, the district court

correctly concluded that appellant failed to demonstrate an injury-in-fact as required for

Article III standing. See Swanson Group Mfg., LLC v. Jewell, 790 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.

Cir. 2015) (“‘[G]eneral averments’ and ‘conclusory allegations’ . . . are ‘inadequate’ to

demonstrate standing.” (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs.

(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 184 (2000)). Finally, the district court was also right that

appellant was precluded from representing third-party claimants. “[A] party ‘generally

must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the

legal rights of third parties.” Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 129 (2004) (quoting

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)). 

USCA Case #15-5285 Document #1629604 Filed: 08/10/2016 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5285 September Term, 2015

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Page 2

USCA Case #15-5285 Document #1629604 Filed: 08/10/2016 Page 2 of 2