N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ONE FAIR

W AGE, INC ., Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DARDEN RESTAUR

ANTS INC ., De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 21-16691 D.C . No. 3:21-c v-02695-EM C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd M . C he n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 30, 2022 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , B YB EE, a nd VANDYKE, C irc uit Judge s . Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt One Fa ir W a g e , Inc . (OFW ) brought suit aga inst De fe nda nt-Appe lle e Da

rde n R e sta

urants, Inc . (Darde n), unde r Title VII of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1964 (Title VII) a lle ging ra c e - an d se x-ba se d dispa ra te im pa c t
a s a re sult of two of Da

rde n’ s e m p loy m e nt polic ie s. B e c a

use the distric t c ourt did 

# FIL ED
MAR 10 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.not a ddre ss its Artic le III subje c t-m a tte r jurisdic tion be fore re a c hing a sta tutory que stion on the

m e rits, we re m and to the distric t c ourt to a nswe r the Artic le III que stion in the

first insta nc e . OFWis a not-for-profit c orporation tha t a d voc at e s for the e lim ination of subm inim um wa ge s for tippe d worke rs, a c ting prim arily through lobbyi ng e fforts dire c te d towa

rds both le gisla

ture s a nd e m ploy e rs. Da

rde n is a Florida c orporation
and the la rge st ope ra tor of full-se rvic e re sta urants in theworld. OFW file d the pre s e nt c o m

pla int on its own be

ha lf a lle ging disc rim i nation. It se e ks re dre s s for injurie s a lle ge dly

c a use d to the orga

niz ation a s a c onse que nc e of Da rde n’ s c a shwa ge polic y

and tipping polic

y , na m e ly dive rsion of OFW ’ s m one ta ry and nonm one ta ry re sourc e s to a ssist Da

rde n e m ploy e e s ne gative ly

im pa c te d by the polic ie s. In re sponse to the c om

pla int, Da rde n file d thre e m otions to dism iss, a rguing that (1) the distric t

c ourt la c ke d subje c t-m a tte r jurisdic tion due to OFW ’ s la c k of Artic le III sta

nding, Fe d. R . C i v. P. 12(b)(1); (2) the distric t c ourt la c ke d pe rsona l jurisdic tion ove r it a

nd ve n ue wa s im

prope r, Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(2), (3); a nd (3) the c om pla i nt did not sta

te a c la im upon whic h re lie f c an

be grante d , be c a

use OFW la c ke d sta tutory sta nding to bring suit unde

r Title VII, Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 12(b)(6). In
a c are ful orde r, the distric t c ourt gra nte d in pa rt a nd de nie d in pa

rt Da rde n’ s
2m otions. The c ourt c onc lude d tha t Da rde n wa s subje c t to pe rsona l jurisdic tion in C a lifornia and tha t ve nue wa s prope r in the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia
. W ith
re spe c t to Artic le III organ iz a tiona l sta nding, the distric t c ourt sugge ste d tha t “ the re ha s not be e n a

suffic ie n t showing of dire c t im pa irm e nt of OFW ’ s a

bility to ope ra te
and func tion to c onfe r sta nding,” but stoppe d short of re a c hing a c o nc lusion be c a use it dismisse d

on othe r grounds. The distric t c ourt inste a d gra nte d Da rde n ’ s
m otion to dism

iss for fa ilure to sta

te a c la im on the grounds tha

t OFW la c ke d sta tutory sta nding unde r Title VII; a s a non-e m ploy e e , a dvoc a c y

orga niz a tion, OFWdid not fa ll within the “ z one of inte re sts” prote c te d by Title VII and wa s

“ only de rivative l y

a ffe c te d by

a lle ge d se x and ra c e -ba se d disc rim ination.” This
a ppe a l followe d, with thepa rtie s disputing—

and brie fing— only

the sta tutory sta nding que stion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 to re vie w fina l de c isions from the d istric t c o urt. “ W e re vie wde novo a distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l unde r R ule 12(b)(6) of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e d

ure .” C urtis v . Irw in Indus., Inc

. , 913 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th C ir. 2019). As a lwa y s , “ we hav e jurisdic tion to de te rm ine whe the r we have jurisdic tion to he ar the c a se .” Aguon-Sc hulte v . Guam Ele c tion C omm’n , 469 F.3d 1236, 1239 (9th C ir. 2006).

3B e fore we c an de c ide the que stion pre se nte d and brie fe d

by the pa rtie s, we
m ust sa tisfy ourse lve s of our Artic le III jurisdic tion to he ar the a ppe a l. Tha

t que stion, in turn, re quire s us to besatisfie d tha t the distric t c ourt ha d Artic l e III jurisdic tion ove r the c a se . Se e Ste e l C o. v . C itize ns for a Be tte r

Env ’t , 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (“ On e ve ry

writ e rror or a

ppe a l, the first a

nd funda m e nta l que stion is that of jurisdic tion, first, of this c ourt, a nd the n of the c ourt from whic h the re c ord
c om e s.” (quoting Gre at S. Fire Proof Hote l C

o. v . J one s , 177 U.S. 449, 453 (1900)). The orde r of battle

— the que s tion of wha

t se que nc e we m ay

or m ust de c ide va rious issue s pre se nte d

to us— wa s a ddre sse d in Ste e l C

o. v . C itize n s for a Be tte r Env ironme n t . The C ourt in Ste e l C

o. c onc lude d tha

t fe d e ra l c ourts c annot proc e e d to the
m e rits without first a ssuring the m se lve s of the i r Artic l e III jurisdic tion. “ Artic le III jurisdic tion is a lwa

y s a n a nte c e de nt que stion . . . .” Id. a t 101. The C ourt thus

“ de c line [d] to e ndorse ” the “ doc trine of hy pothe tic a l jurisdic tion” e m bra c e d by
som e lowe r c ourts to “

p roc e e d im

m e diat e ly to the m e rits que stion, de spite jurisdic tiona l obje c t ions.” Id. at 93–94 (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d ).

“ W ithout jurisdic tion the c ourt c annot proc e e d at a ll in a ny c a u s e . Jurisdic t ion is powe r to de c la

re the la w , a nd whe n it c e a se s to e xist, theonly func tion re m a ining to the c ourt is tha

t of a nnounc ing the fa c t a

nd dism issing the c a

use .” Id. a t 94
4(quoting Ex

parte Mc C ardle , 74 U.S. (7 W a ll.) 506, 514 (1868)). An exe rc i se of

“ [h] y pothe tic a l jurisdic tion produc e s nothing m ore tha n a hy pothe tic a l judgm e nt—

whic h c o m e s to the sa

m e thing a s a

n a dvisory

opinion . . . .” Id. a t 101. Ste e l C o. sugge ste d in dic ta

tha t sta tutory sta nding wa s not a

subse t of Artic le III jurisdic tion. Se e id. a t 97 (“ [ S] tatutory

sta nding . . . ha s nothing to do with whe the r the re is c a se or c o ntrove rsy unde r Artic le III.” ); id. a t 115–17 (Ste ve ns, J., c o nc urring in thejudgm e nt) (disc ussing a num be r of c a se s in whic h the C ourt ha d “ a

c h oic e b e twe e n a

sta tutory jurisdic tiona l que s tion a nd a que stion of Artic le III sta

nding” ); s e e also id. a t 92 (Sc a lia , J., m a j. op.) (dismissing the
c a se s disc usse d b y

Justic e Ste ve ns “ be c a

u se it is not a sta

tutory standing q

ue stion that Justic e Ste ve n s would ha ve us de c ide first, [but a

que stion on] . . . the m e rits” ). In the y e ars following Ste e l C o. , howe ve r, the C ourt re c ogniz e d som e e x c e ptions to the A rtic le III-first dic tate of Ste e l C o. T he C ourt, for e xam

ple , pe rm itte d lowe r
c ourts to de c ide que stions suc h a s pe rsona l jurisdic tion, forum non c onv e n ie ns , a nd sta tutory a u thoriz a tion of a

suit a ga inst a sta

te be fore ruling on the c ourts’ Artic le III jurisdic tion. Se e Sinoc he m Int’l C o. v . Malay

. Int’l Shipping C orp. , 549 U.S. 422, 429 (2007) (

forum non c onv e nie ns ); Vt. Age nc y of N at. Re s . v . U.S. e

x re l. Ste v e ns , 529 U.S. 765, 779 (2000) (de c i ding sta tutory c a use of a c t ion be fore Ele v e n th Am e n dm e nt im

m unity from fe de ra l jurisdic tion unde r Artic le III);
5Ruhrgas AG v

. Marathon Oil C o. , 526 U.S. 574, 588 (1999) (pe rsona l jurisdic tion). Ste e l C o. ’ s proge ny le ft us with some unc e rta inty a bout the re lationship be twe e n subje c t m a tte r-jurisdic tion a nd subje c t-m a tte r a d

ja c e nt que stions. The C ourt offe re d som e c la rific a t ion in Le

x mark Inte rnational, Inc . v . Static C ontrol C ompone n ts, Inc
. , 572 U.S. 118 (2014). In tha t c a s e , Le x m ark m ove d to dism iss a c ounte rc la im

on the grounds tha

t the opposing pa

rty la c k e d sta tutory

— but not Artic le III— sta

nding to bring the

a c tion unde r the La

nha m Ac t be c a use the y did not “ fa ll within the

z o ne of inte re sts prote c te d by the la w invoke d.” Id. a t 129 (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d) (quoting Alle n v . W right , 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)). In a footnote , the C ourt a c knowle d ge d tha t it ha d “ on
oc c a sion re fe rre d to this inquiry a s ‘ sta tutory sta nding’ an d tre at e d it a s e ffe c tive ly jurisdic tiona l ,” but sa id tha t the te rm wa s “ m isle a ding, sinc e ‘ the a bse nc e of a

va lid (a s oppose d to a

rgua ble ) c a use of a c tion doe s not im

plic a te subje c t-m a tte r jurisdic tion, i.e ., the c ourt’ s sta tutory or c o nstitutiona

l pow e r to a djudic a te the
c a se .’ ” Id. a t 128 n.4 (quoting V e rizon Md. Inc . v . Pub. Se rv . C omm’n of Md. , 535 U.S. 635, 642–43 (2002)). Le x mark thus strongly

sugge sts tha

t sta tutory sta nding que stions a

re nonjurisdic tiona l. Inde e d, in a pre - Le x mark de c ision, we sta

te d tha t

“ a dism issa l for la c k of sta tutory sta nding is properly

vie we d a s a

dism issa l for fa ilure to sta

t e a c l a im ra the r tha

n a dism issa l for la c k of subje c t m a tte r
6jurisdic tion.” Vaughn v . Bay Env ’t Mgmt., Inc

. , 567 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th C ir.

2009). Ne ve rthe le s s, que stions of sta tutory sta nding a re c om plic a te d a nd m ay turn on the pe c ulia

r la ngua ge of the sta

tute in que stion. W e c annot de finitive ly pronounc e tha

t no suc h que stions a

re subje c t-m a tte r a dja c e nt que stions, a nd thus
e xe m pt from the m andate of Ste e l C

o . and its proge ny . W e c onc lude that the distric t c o urt wa s obliga

te d to re solve first whe the r OFW ha d Artic le III sta

nding, unle ss it c an e xpla in why anothe r issue

— inc luding OFW ’ s sta nding to bring suit unde r Title VII— is dispositive and subje c t-m atte r a dja c e nt, thus c om ing within the Ste e l C o. line of c a se s. W e are not a

ble to a nswe r the se que s tions on this re c ord. Ne ithe r party brie fe d the Artic l e III que stion be fore us. OFW ’ s brie f in opposition to the
m otions to dism

i ss from the distric t c ourt doc ke t de vote d only a c ouple of pa ge s to the i ssue . W ithout brie fing or a de ve lope d re c o rd on the issue , we are re luc ta nt to rule on the se diffic ult issue s in the first insta nc e . Ac c ordingly , we V A C AT E the distric t c o urt’ s orde r and RE M A ND to the distric t c ourt for furthe r proc e e dings
c onsiste n t with this de c ision.

7