F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au gust 29, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1152 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-02633 -CV -JOF -1 GRE AT ER

AT LA NT A H OME BU IL DE RS ASSOCIATION, INC., NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE PROPERTI ES, INC., Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us CITY OF ATLANTA , GEORGIA, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Augus t 29 , 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BA RKE T T a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:GAHB A’s member s must pay impact fe es as a

condition to development of sing le- 1 fa mil y re sid e nc e s w ith in t

he City . NA I OP ’s me mbe rs mus t pa y imp a c t f e e s a s a c on dit ion

to d e v e l o p m e n to f

c o m m e r c i a l p r o p e rt i e s w i th i nth e C i ty. The Plaintiffs also asse rted c laims based on equa l protection and substantive due 2 pr oc e ss. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of tho se c la ims is n ot at is su e in t his a pp e a l. 2 T he G re at er

A tlanta H om eb uil de rs A sso ci at ion , I nc . ( “ G A H BA ”) a nd the N at ion al A sso ci at ionof

I ndus tr ia l an d O ff

ic e Pr ope rt ie s, I nc . ( “N A IO P” ) ap pe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ntr

y of sum m ar y j udgm en t, ba se d onla ck

of standi ng, in the ir

a ct ion ag ainst the Ci ty

of A tlanta , G eo rg ia , c onc er nin g th e Ci ty ’ s a lle ge d un law fu l
ex pe ndi tur e of

de velo pm en t i m

pa ct f ee s im pose d by the Ci ty on n ewde ve lop m en t pr oj ec ts. In the ir

c om pla int , P la int if

fs a sse rt ed , int er

a lia , that the Ci ty ’ s a

ppl ic at ion 1 of the im pact fee program violated the Taking s Clause. More specif ically , P laintiffs 2 asserted that th e City ’ s expenditu re of the c ollected fees am ount ed to an
unc onst itu tio na l t ak ing becau se the f ee s w er e use d to e nc our ag e co nstru ct ionin unde ve lop ed

a re as r athe r than to ex pa nd inf ra str uc tur e to s er

ve the f ee -p ay ing de ve lop m en t pr oj ec ts. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d sum m ar y j udgm en t af

te r co nc lud ing tha t the P la int if

fs , ne ith er of w hic h ha s ev er pa id an im pa ct fe e, did not ha ve standi ng to b ri ng c la im s on be ha lf of the ir m em be rs a nd, a lte rn at ive ly , that the c la im s w er e not rip e b ecau se Pla in ti ffs ha d n ot pu rs ue d a va il ab le st at e la w rem ed ie s. O n appe a l , P l a i n t i f

f s a r g u e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rte rr e do n b o t h g r o u n d s . F i r st, Pl ai nti ff s a sse rt the y e sta bli she d a sso ci at ion al standi ng t o br ing thi s sui t on b eh al f ofBa sed on our c onclusion that the district court properly enter ed sum mary judgme nt based 3 on a lack of st anding , we do not rea ch the court’s alternative basis for summ ary judgme nt, that the claims wer e not ripe. 3 their m em

bers, and that the dist rict court’ s concl u s i o n that the claim would require
a re vie ww ithr es pe ct

to each indivi dua l m em be r’ s c ir cu m stanc es w as e rr one ous. Se co nd, P la int if

fs co nte nd tha t the dis tr ic t cour t er re d in its r ipe ne ss ana ly sis be ca use the ir c la im s f al l w ith in an ex cep ti on t o th e ex haust ionr equir em en t, giv enthe ina de qua cy

of the a dm ini str at iv e rem edy
. W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s st an din g 3 analy sis de nov o. See Bochese v. Town of P once Inlet, 405 F.3d 964 , 975 (11th Cir. 20 05 ). A ft er tho ro ugh re vie wof

the r ec or d and c ar ef

ul c onsi de ratio n of

the part ie s’ b r i e f s , w e a f f i rm. To have standing, and therefore a j usticiable “ case or c ontroversy ,” Plaintiffs
m ust e sta bli sh tha t: (1 ) the y ha ve suf fe re d apart ic ulari ze d, c onc re te inj ur y to a le ga lly protected interest (injur

y -in-fac t); (2) the inj ury

is fairly trace able to the challenged action ( ca u s at i o n ); and (3) it is likely that the injury

m ay be redre ssed by

j udicial action (redre ssabilit y ). See Fla. Public Interest Re search G roup Citizen L obby , I nc.
v. E. P. A. , 386 F. 3d 1070, 1083 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Region 8 Forest Ser v. T im ber Pu rch as ers Co un ci l v . Alco ck , 99 3 F .2d 80 0, 8 05 (11 th Cir . 19 93 )). W h e n t h e pla int if f is an a sso ci at ion , a s he re , th e pl ai nti ff -a sso ci at iona lso m

ust sho w : ( 1) it s4

m em be rs oth er

w ise ha ve standi ng to s ue in the ir ow n r igh t; (2 ) the int er es ts the pla int if f- as soc ia tio n se ek s to pr ote ct a re ge rm an e to the a sso ci at ion ’ s p urpo se ; and (3 ) ne ith er

the c la im as se rt ed nor the re lie f re que ste d m ust r equir e the part ic ipa tio n of the a sso ci at ion ’ s m em

be rs . S ee R eg ion8 F or es t, 993 F
. 2d a t 80 5 n. 3. T he dis tr ic t co urt he ld tha t be ca use not al l of Pl ai nti ff

s’ m em be rs ha d pa id the im pa ct f ee s and thus w er e af

fe ct ed dif fe re ntl y , P la int if

fs c oul d no t e sta

bli sh the injury -in-fac t com

ponent of the standing analy sis , n o r could they satisfy the third
com ponent for associational standin g -- that is, the relief requested m ust not require the part ic ipa tio n of

the ind ivi dua l a sso ci at ionm em be rs . T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound the ins tant c as e ind ist ing uis hable f ro m G eo rg iaCe m et ery Ass ’ n, I nc . v. Co x, 353 F
. 3d 1319 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) , in w hic h w e he ld tha t th e na m ed pla int if f did not ha ve
as soc ia tio na l st an din g to br ing an as -a ppl ie d ta kin gs cl ai m be ca

use suc h ac la im

“ w ill
vary de pe ndi ng u

pon the e co nom ic c ir cu m stanc es of e ac h of it s m em be rs ” an d, thu s, req ui redth e p art ic ip at io n o f th os e m em be rs . Id. at 13 22 -2 3. In this appeal, Pla intiffs attem pt to di stin gu i sh

thi s c a se from

Ge orgia Cem etery on the sam e grounds th ey asserted in the dis t ri ct co u rt. They prim arily

assert that becaus e t h ey challenge the City ’ s expenditu re of the f unds after

collection, as
o p p o s ed t o t h e c o l l ec t i o n i t s el f, n o i n d i v i d u al i ze di n qu i ry i n t o ea ch m emb er ’s ci rc um stanc es is ne ce ssary . T he y a lso c la im

that be ca use the y se ek onl y inj unc tiv e5

re lie f, the y

c anbr ing the ir

c la im s. W e, too , fi nd G eo rg ia Ce m et er y dis posi tiv e of

the
as soc ia tio na l st an din g in qui ry . L ike in tha t ca se , he re , “ the ec onom ic im pa ct of [ the A tlanta or din an ce ] w ill vary de pe ndi ng upon the ec onom ic ci rc um stanc es of e ac h of [the a sso ci at ion s’ m em

be rs ]
. ” 353 F. 3d a t 13 23. I n m ak ing thi s de te rm ina tio n a t the
sum m ar y j udgm en t st ag e, ac ourt c onsi de rs the al le ga tio ns o f the c om pla int , a s w el l
a s t h e P l a i n t i f

f s ’ p r o o f o n e a c h e l e men t o f s t a n d i n g . S e e B i s c h o f f v . Os c e o l aC o u n t y, Fl a. , 222 F. 3d 8 74, 878 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0) ( obse rv ing “ ea che le m en t of standi ng m

ust be sup porte d inthe sa m e w ay a s any oth er m atte r on w hic h th e pla int iff be ar s th e bur de n of

pr oof , i. e. , w iththe m an ner an d de gr ee of e vid en ce r equir ed

a t the
suc c e s s i v e s t a g e s o f l i t i g a t i o n ” )
. W e r e c e n t l y h e l d t h a t “ i t i s n o t e n o u g h t h a t t he pla int if f’ s c om pla int se ts f orth f ac ts f ro m w hic h w e co uld

im ag ine a n in

j ur y suf fi ci en t to s at isf y Artic le I II ’ s st an din g r equir em en ts, sin ce w e shou ld n ot s pe cu la te concerning the existence of standin g, n o r s h o uld we im agine or piece together an injury sufficient to give plaint iff standing when it has dem onstrated none.” Bochese, 405 F.3d at 9 76 ( i nt e rnal quotation m arks and citation om itted) (em phasis in original). By the very term s of the com

plaint, Plaintiffs’ claim s require the individ ualized inquir ie s di sc uss ed

by the dis tr ic t c ourt. P la int if fs a lle ge d th at

the Ci ty “ unl aw fu lly bur de n[ ed ] de ve loper s inthe a llo catio n of c ivi c co sts , the re by

vio la tin g P la int if

fs ’
m em be rs ’ pr ope rty

r igh ts. ” Be ca

use the al le ge d “ unl aw fu l bur de n” m ay , a nd l ike ly6

will, be differ en t fo r each m em ber depending o n, am ong o ther things , whether that
m em ber has paid the im

pact fee or is exem

pt, the district court c orrectly denied
as soc ia tio na l st an din g. W e, too , f ind de fi ci en t the P la int if

fs ’ pr oof on the associational-stand ing iss ue, which consis ted of, inter alia, Plaintiffs’ assertion that they had com piled list s of their m em

bers, includ ing those that had paid or would pay the f ee in the f uture . Jus t be ca

use ind ivi dual m em

be rs of the P la int if

f- as soc ia tio ns
m ay have standing to assert th e cl ai m s here does not, in and of itself, establish th at the a sso ci at ion s th em se lve s h av e st an din g. Cf
. N at ’ l P ar

ks C onse rv at ionA ss’ n v. Norton, 324 F. 3d 1229 , 124 3 (11th Cir. 2003 ) (not ing fact that “ appellants’ m em bers poss ess Article III standing
. . . does not confirm that appellants them selves m ay
sue ”)
. O n th is re co rd , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat P la int if fs ha ve not
m etth ei r bu rd en to est ab li sh ass oc ia ti on al st an di ng to ass ert th ei r ta ki ng s cl ai m s. AFFIRMED.