Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10722 Su m m ar y Cal endar

STE PH EN BE LL, I ndivi dua l l y, a nd o n b e half o f o t he r s s i m i l ar l y s i t uat e d; A L E X IS M O N R R E A L , In d iv id u a lly , a n do n b e h a lf o f o th e r s s im ila r ly si t u ated ; JA C Q U E L IN E M O N R R E A L , I n divi du al l y, an d on beh al f of ot h ers si m i l arl y si t u ated P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l an t s v. A M E R IC A N T R A F F IC S O L U T IO N S , IN C

. D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 3 :08 -C V -2 0 9 3 -G

B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * A ppell ant s St ephen B ell , Al exi s M onr rea l , an dJacqueli ne M onr r ealappeal f rom t h e di st ri ctcourt’ s di sm i ssalof t h ei r negl i gen ce per s e cl ai m against A p p ell ee A m erican T ra ff i c S olu ti on s, In c. (“A T S ”)

. W e con cl u d e th a t A p p ell a n ts United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 23, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10722 Document: 00511059292 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10722

2 la c k s t a n d in gto a s s e r tth e irc la im a n dth e r e fo r e a ff ir m th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d is m is s a l o f th is ca s e , b u t v a c a te its ru lin go n th e m e r its o f A p p e lla n ts ’cla im
. I. In t h e la t t er hal f

of 200 8, each A pp el l an tran a red tr af f i c li gh ti n ei t h er th e C i ty of A rl i n gto n or th e C i ty of Irvingan drece ive da n oti ce of a t r a ffic vi ol at i on. Th e C i t i es i ss ued t hes e no t i c es on t he bas i s of phot ogr aphs t aken by t r af f i c c am er as i nst al l ed and ope r at ed byA TS i n A r l i ngt on and I r vi ng. AT S had
c o n tractedw i th the C i ti es to m on i tor com p l i a n ce w i th traff i c l i gh ts at ce r ta in in te r s e c tio n s . A p p e lla n ts d idn o t c o n te s t t h e n o tic e s o f v io la tio n a n de a c h p a id f i nes of $75 t o e i t herA r l i ngt on o rI r vi ng. S h ortly th ere a ft er, i n N ov em b er 20 0 8 , A p p ell a n ts fil ed th e pre sen t s u it unde rano ve lt he o r y o f r e c o ve r y. T he y c l ai m t hatATS i s a n “i nve s t i ga t i o ns c o m pa ny”t hatund e rTe x. O c c . Cod e A nn. § 170 2. 10 1 m aynotope r at e w i t ho ut
a lic e n s e fr o m th e S ta te o f T e x a s . S ee T ex. O cc. C ode A n n . § 1702

. 104 ( 2) (V ernon 2 0 0 4 ) (“Ap e r s o n a c ts a s a n in v e s tig a tio n s co m p a n yfo rth e p u r p o s e s o f th is cha pter i f

the person . . . en gag es i n the bu si n ess of secu ri n g . . . ev i den ce f or use b e fo r e aco u r t, b o a r d , o ffic e r , o rin v e s tig a tin gco m m itt e e . . . .” ). S in c e A T S d id
n o t h a v e alice n s e w h e n its ca m e r a s ca p tu r e de v id e n c e o f A p p e l l a n ts ’tr a ffic vi ol ati on s, A pp el l an t s argue that A T S ’ s c on du ctqu al i f i es as n egl i gen ce per se. C on seq u en tly, t h eysee k i nj u n ctive reli e f to b lock A T S f rom con ti n u i n g to operate w i t h ou t a li cense, rei m bu rsem en tof f i n es and rel ated expen ses, $3, 000 , 000 i ndam ages, an d cert i f i cat i on of

a cl ass of

si m i l ar ly sit u ated in d iv id u a ls u n d e rR u le 2 3
. T h e d i stri ct cou rt h eld th a t A p p ell a n ts h a dstan d i n g u n d er A rti cl e III t o as se r tt hei rnegl i genc e pe rs e c l ai m . H ow eve r , af t er r evi ew i ng t he fac t or s t hat Texas c o ur t s c o ns i de rw he n a s ke d t o c r e at e ne gli ge nc e pe rs e l i ab i l i t y f o rt he vi ol ati on of

a st atute, t h e courtal so concl u ded t h at A T S ’ s al l egedvi ol ati on of sect i on 170 2. 101 coul d n otestabl i sh n egl i gen ce p er se. A s a resul t , itdi sm i ssed Case: 09-10722 Document: 00511059292 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10722

3 A p p ell a n ts’action u n d er R u l e 1 2 (b)( 6 ) for fa ilu r e to sta te a claim
. A p p ell a n ts
now appealt hi s det er m i nat i on, butw e a f f i r m t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s di sm i ss al , as w e f i n dt h a tA p p e l l a n t s l a c k s t a n d i n gt o b r i n gt h e i rn e g l i g e n c e p e rs e c l a i m. II. W h et h er a di st ri ctcourtpossess es s u bj ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on i s r evi ew ed d e n o v o o n a p p e a l. Sa nd o zv . Ci ng ula rWi r e le s s LLC , 5 53 F
. 3d 9 13, 9 15 (5t h C i r. 200 8)

. W h en a di st ri ctc o u rt d ism i sses a case because l ack of subj ectm att er j uri sdi c t i on i s appar enton t he fac e o f t he pl ai nt i f

f ’ s c om pl ai nt , t he fac t ual
a l l e g a tio n s in th e c o m p la in t m u s t b e a c c e p te d a s if th e y w e r e tr u e . S ee Wi l l i am son v. Tu cker , 6 4 5 F .2d 4 0 4 , 4 1 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 1 ).

“ [ S ] t an di n g i s an essenti alan d u n cha n gi n g pa rt of t h e case- or- controver sy req u i rem en t of

A rti cl e III. ” L u

ja n v. D efe n d er s of Wild lif e , 504 U
. S. 555, 560 ( 1992)

. W hen a pl ai nt i f f cannots at i sf

y t he s t andi ng r equi r em ent s i m pos ed by A r tic le II I, co u r ts la c k s u bje c t m a tt e rju r is d ic tio n o v e raca s e . SeeCadleCo. v. Neub au er , 5 6 2 F .3 d3 6 9 , 3 7 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). T o p r o v e s ta n d in gto b r in gacla im i n f e de r alc o ur t , “ a l i t i ga ntm us tdem o ns t r at e t hati thas suf fe r e d a c o nc r e t e a nd p a r tic u la r iz e dinju r yth a t is eit h e r a c tu a l o r im m in e n t, th a t th e inju r yis fa ir ly tr a c e a b le to th e d e fe n d a n t, a n dth a t itis lik e lyth a t a fa v o r a b l e d e c i s i o n w ill red ress th a t i nj u ry . ” Ma s s a c hu s e t t s v . EPA , 549 U
. S. 497, 517 ( 2007)

. Al t hough A ppel l ant s have notbri ef ed t he st andi ng i ss ue on appeal , t hey adva nce d s eve r al th eo ri es o f i nj u ryi n the distri ct cou rt t o d em on strate tha t t h eyh a ve stan d i n g to bri n g sui t a g ai n stA T S f or operat i n g t raf

f i c li gh tcam eras w i t h ou ta l i cense. H ow ever, non e of

t h ese th eori es are suff i ci en tt o p ro v ide st an di n g t o adv an ce t h ei r c l ai m s. F i rst , A pp el l an t s c l ai m ed i n t h e di st ri ctcourt t h at t h ey h ave been i nj u red by thei r t raf

f i c c i t ati o n s a n d rel ated f i n es and expen ses. Th ese i nj u ri es, h ow ever, cann otcr eate s t an di n g. A pp el l an t s hav e not al l egedt h at t h ey w ere i m pro per l y ci ted f

ort r af f i c vi ol at i ons by t he C i t i es of A r l i ngt on and I r vi ng; Case: 09-10722 Document: 00511059292 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10722

4 i n st ead , t h ey h ave cl ai m ed thei r vi ol ati on s w ou l d not h ave been di scovered w ere i tnotf orA TS

. Thi s i nt er es ti n evadi n g th e l a w cannotc r eat e s t andi ng— a p l a i n ti ff

’ s com p l a i n t t h a t t h e d efen d a n t’ s ac ti on s “w i l lm a k e h i s cri m i n a lactivi ty
m o r e d if

fi c u ltla c k s s t a n d in gb e c a u s e h is in t e r e s tis n o t‘le g a ll yp r o t e c t e d .’” Ini t i ati ve an dR ef

ere n d u m I

n st
. v. W

alker , 450 F. 3d 1082, 1093 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) (c itin g 1 3 C h a r le s A la n W r ig h t eta l., F ederalPract i ce an dProce d u re § 3 5 3 1 .4 (2 ded
. S u p p . 2 0 0 5 )). S econd , A pp el l an t s asser t ed i n t h e proceedi n gs bel ow t h at t h ey h ave been inju r e db yth e u s e o f a lle g e d ly ille g a lly o b ta in e d e v id e n c e to p r o v e th e irtr a ffic violati on s. Ju d ge F i sh con cl u d ed tha t t h i s all eg ed i nj u ryw a s su ff i ci en t t o p r o v id e A p p e lla n ts w ith s ta n d in g . H o w e v e r , J u d g e F is h la te r r e c o n s id e r e dth is rul i n g i n a su bsequ en tcase f i l ed by a si m i l ar g roup of plai n t i f fs agai n stan ot h er red l i gh tcam era operator , f i n din gin ste a d that t h i s al l egedi nj u ry coul d n ot
c r e a t e s t a n d in g . S ee 

### Verran dov. ACS Statean d Local So lutions, Inc. , No. 3 :0 8 -cv- 02241- G, 2009 WL 2958370, at*3 (N. D. Tex. Sept

. 15, 2009)

. In Ver r ando , Ju d ge F i sh h eld th a t 

### ille g allyob tain e devid e ncem ayb ea d m itte din civil traff

ic violationprocee ding s andthat therefore theuse o f such evide nce cr e a t e s noin

jury . S ee Te x . Tr a ns p . Co d e Ann

. § 7 0 7
. 0 0 2 (Ve r no n Su p p . 2 009) ( “ Th e g ove r ni ng body of a l oc alaut hor i t y by or di nance m ay i m pl em ent a p h o to g ra p h ic tra ffi c s ign a l en for ce m e n t sy ste m a n d p ro v id e th a t th e ow n e r o f a
m ot orve hi c l e i s l i abl e t o t he l oc alaut hor i t y f ora civ il p en a ltyif . . . th e v e h ic le is o p e r a te din v io la tio n o f th e in s t r u c t i o n s o f th a t t r a ffic -c o n tr o l s ig n a l .
. . .” (e m p h a s is a d d e d )); Un itedS ta tes v. J a n is , 4 28 U
. S. 4 33 , 4 47 ( 1976) (“ I n t he
c om pl ex and t urbul enthi story o f t he [ exc l usi onar y] r ul e, t he C our tneve rhas
a p p lie d i tt o e x c lu d e e v id e n c e fr o m aciv il p r o c e e d in g , fe d e r a l o rs ta te .”); In re St r at egi cImpac tCor p. , 2 1 4 S .W .3 d4 8 4 , 4 8 8 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D is t.] 200 6, ori g. proceedi n g [ m an d. den i ed]) ( “ In civi lcases , even i l l egally obtai n ed
e v id e n c e m a yb e a d m is s ib le a t t r ia l.”); S t atev. T aylor , 721 S. W
. 2d 541, 551 (Tex. Case: 09-10722 Document: 00511059292 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10722

W e n o te th a t o n e T e x a s a p p e l l a t e c o u r th a s h e ldth a t ille g a lly 1 o b ta in e de v id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e din civ il ca s e s , e v e n w h e n th e s ta tu te in que s t i o n do e s no t e xp l i c i t l y pr o vi de f o r e xc l us i o n. I n Col l i ns v . Col l i ns , the Texas Fi r s tCour to f

Appe al s hel d t h ate vi de nc e o bt ai ne d i n v i o l at i o n o f f e de r ala nd st at e w i r et ap s t at ut es m ay be exc l uded i n c ivi lproc ee di ngs. 904 S. W
. 2d 792, 799 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1s tD i st
. ] 1995, w r i tdeni ed)

. S p ec i f i c al l y, i thel d t hat
“ [ a] l t ho ught he T exas w i r e t ap s t at ut e do e s no ts pe c i f i c al l y pr o vi de f

o rt he excl u si on of

i l l egally o b ta in e d ‘ com m u n i cat i on s, ’t h e provi si on s f or a c au se of act i on f or divu l gi n g w i ret ap i n f orm ati onan d th e inj u n ct ive rem edi es . . . are suff i ci en tt o rebut t h e presum pti on of adm i ssibi l i t y u n der [T exas R u le of E vid en ce] 40 2
. ” Id
. W e f i nd Col l i n s i n ap posi t e in this case f or s everalreasons. F ir s t, Col l i n s i s i n tensi on w i t h the w ei gh tof au t h ori t y di scussed abov e, w h i ch pr o vi de s t hati l l e ga l l y o bt ai ne d e vi de nc e i s a dm i s s ibl e i n c ivilpr o c e e di ngs . Se c o nd, unl i ke t he Tex as w i r e t ap pi ng s t at ut e c o ns i de r e d i n Col l i ns , Texas l aw do e s no ta l l o w pr iva t e c i t i z e ns t o s ue t o enfor c e s e c t i o n 1 70 2. 10 1’ s l i c e ns i ng requ i rem en tor t o seek i nj u n ct ive rel i ef again st d isclos u re of i n f orm ati on o b ta in e dw ith o u t a lice n s e . Compar e T ex . O c c . C ode §§ 1702. 381- 383 (a u th o r iz in ga tt o r n e y s fo rs ta te to file s u it t o s e e k inju n c tiv e re lie f a n dciv il p e n a ltie s fo rfa ilu r e to a c q u ir e lice n s e ), w i t h § 1 7 0 2
. 4 0 1 ( a u th orizi n g p riva te ci t i zens to f

i l e com pl ai n t s w i t h T exas P rivate S e cu rity B oard w h en enti t i es act i n g as i n vest i gati on s c om pa n i es fai lt o acqu i re li censes)

. Th i rd, the excl u si on of evi den ce e n d o rsed by t h e Col l i n s c our thas bee n ca l l ed i nt o q ues t i on by a n o th e rT e x a s a p p e lla te co u r t. Se eAl le n v . Manc i ni , 170 S. W
. 3d 167, 172 (Tex. A p p . — E a stl a n d20 0 5 , pe t. de n i ed ) (exp l a i n i n g th a t T ex a s w i reta p p i n g sta tu te
“ does n otadd ress t h e adm i ss ib il ity of

. . . evi den ce absent an i nj u n ct i on p ro h ib iti n gth e d ivu lge n ce oru se of [th e w ro n g fu llyob ta in e d ] in fo rm a tion ”). C on sequ en t l y, w e are c on f i den tt h at A T S ’ s ph ot ograp h s of A pp el l an t s’veh i cl es w ere properl y a d m i t t ed to prove A pp el l an t s’t raf f i c vi ol ati on s, even i f t h ese ph ot ograp h s w ere obt ai n ed w i t h ou ta l i cense. 5 A pp. — Tyl er1986, w r i tr ef ’ d n. r . e. ) ( appra i sa lc ond u ct ed byunl i c ens ed r eal est ate broker hel d ad m i ssibl e i n condem n ati on case)

. C on sequ en t l y, t h i s al l eged i nj ury t o Appel l ant s i s i l l uso r y. 1 T h i rd, i n t h e di st ri ctcourtA pp el l an t s s u ggested t h at A T S ’ s c ol l ect i on of evi denc e w i t houta li c ens e i nj ure d t hei ri nt er es ti n privac y. E ven ass um i ng t hat ta k in gap h o to g r a p h o f av e h ic le m o v in gth r o u g h a p u b lic in te r s e c tio n co u ld Case: 09-10722 Document: 00511059292 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10722

W e d o n o t m e a n t o s u g g e s tt h a ta d e fe n d a n t ’s u s e o f p u b lic 2 pho t o gr ap hy ag ai ns ts o m e i nt e r e s to f apl ai nt i f

f c an ne ve re s t ab l i s h a n i nj ur y- i nfactt h at w ou l d be acti on a b le u n d e r A rt i cl e I II
. Th ere m ay be va l i d p rivacy c o n c e r n s r e g a r d in gs u c h p h o to g r a p h y , 

### butwedonotreach thi si s s uetod ay . See, e. g. , 

### Andrew Lavoie, Note, Th e Online Zoo m Lens:Wh y Internet Stree t- Level Mappi ng TechnologiesDe mand Recons i de rat ion of theMode rn-Day TortNot ion of “ Publ icPr i vac

y” , 43 Ga . L. Rev . 575, 5 7 9 -8 2 (2 00 9) (dis cussing p riva cy concerns regarding G oo gle S tree t View). 6 c r e at e an ac t i o nab l e pr iva c y i nj ur y, w e c o nc l ude t hat Appe l l ant s have n ot 2 al l egedsuf

f i ci en tfact s t o show cau sati on b et w een theirp u rport ed p rivacy i nj u ry a n dA T S ’ s fa i l u re to a cq u i re a l i cen se. If a n i n ve sti ga ti on s l i cen se w ere ak i n to
a w ar r anta nd m e antt o b e apr o c e dur alm e ans o f pr o t e c t i ng pr iva c y, t he pl ai n t i f fs w ou l d l i kely be able t o sh ow causati on suf f i ci en tt o proceed i n t h i s c ase. Cf

. Luj an , 504 U
. S

. at 573 n. 8 (1 9 9 2 ) (e x pl ai n i n g t h at pl ai n t i f fs c an “ en f

orce pr o c e dur alr i ght s . . . so l on g as t he pr o c e dur e s i n q ue s t i o n ar ede s igne d to protec tsom e t h reat en ed concret e i n t erest
. . . tha ti s t h e ul t i m ate basi s of [t h ei r] st an di n g” ( em ph asi s add ed))

. H ow ever , T exas case l aw reveal s t h at m ere i n vest i gati on w i t h ou ta l i cens e , w ith ou tm ore, does not i n i t sel f i n t rud e on pr iva c y. I n Huds o n v . Wi nn , a T exas ap pel l ate c ou rtconsi dered a n i n vasi on of privac y c l ai m f

i l ed ag ai nstan unl i c ens ed i nves t i gat or . 859 S. W
. 2d 504, 507- 08 (T ex . A p p . – H ou ston [ 1 st D i st. ] 1 9 9 3 , w ri t de n i ed ). T h e inv estiga tor h a dl i ed to gain entry t o t h e p l ai n t i f f ’ s h om e, an d then al l eged l y i n vest i gated the na t u re of t h e pl ai n t i f

f’ s rel ati on shi p w i t h her 

### d e ce a se dp artn e r. Id
. at505- 06. The pl ai n t i f f cl ai m ed that t h e i n vest i gator’ s fai l u re t o acqu i re a l i cense est abli shed
ne gl i ge nc e pe rs e , b utt he c o ur the l d a ga i ns tt he pl ai nt i f f, a s i tf o und t hatt he evi d e n ce d id n otshow how t h e fai l u re t o acqu i re a l i cense caused an y privacy inju r y . Id
. a t508
. Si m i l arl y, i n t h i s c ase, A pp el l an t s hav e onl y m ad e t h e bare al l e ga t i o n t hatATS col l ect ed e vi de nc e w i t ho utal i c e ns e , w i t ho uta l l e gi ng any fact s to dem on st rat e h ow A T S ’ s l ack of a l i cense contr ibu t ed to an y i n vasi on of Case: 09-10722 Document: 00511059292 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10722

7 th eir priva cy . C on seq u en tly, t h ey h a v e n ot sh ow n the cau sa ti on n ece ssa ryto p r o v id e s ta n d in gto a d v a n c e th e ir n e g lig e n c e p e r s e c la im in fe d e r a l c o u r t. Cf. W a rth v. S eld in , 4 22 U
. S. 4 90 , 5 18 ( 19 75 ) (“ I ti s t he r e s po ns ibil i t y o f t he
com p l a i n a n t cl ea rl y to a l l eg e facts d e m o n s tr a ti n g th a t he i s a p rop er p a rty to i nvoke j udi c i alres ol ut i on o f t he di sput e a nd t he e xer c i se of t he c our t ' s r em edi al p o w e rs .”)

. III. F or t h e f

oregoi n g reason s, w e VA C A T E t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof A p p e ll a n ts’ a ctio n for fa il u re to sta te acla im u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6). See W alt ers v . Edgar , 163 F
. 3d 430 , 437 ( 7th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) (“S in ce . . . t h e di st ri ctcourtnev er acqu i red j u ri sdi ct i on over t h e present s u i t , al lprevi ou s r u l i n gs i n t h i s l i t i gati on i n t h e di st ri ctcourtshou l d be va cat ed .
. . . ” )

. H ow ever, w e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t ’ s d i sm i s s alo f

t hi s a c t i o n, a s w e c o nc l ude t hatAppe l l ant s a r e w i t ho ut
s t a n d i n gt o a s s e r tt h e i rn e g l i g e n c e p e rs e c l a i m. Case: 09-10722 Document: 00511059292 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/23/2010