N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : M IC HAEL KEITH SC H UGG, DB A Shuburg Holste ins a nd DEB R A SC HUGG, De btors,

______________________________ G. GR A NT LYON, C ha

pte r 11 Truste e , Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GILA RIVER

INDIAN C OM M UNITY, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-15872

D.C . No. 2:05-c v-02045-JAT
ORDER *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 5, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# F IL ED APR 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.B e fore : C LIFTON a n d OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ANTOON, ** Distric t Judge
. The Gila R i ve r India

n C om m unity a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s M ay 2012 orde r c onc l uding tha t G. Gra nt Ly o n ha d de v e l ope d sta nding for his c l a im
re ga rding thesc o pe of the e a se m e nt ove r M urphy R o a d. The C o m

m unity a l so
a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s M ay

2014 a nd M arc h 2015 judgme nts de te rm ining that the M urphy

R oa d e a se m e nt pe rm itte d Ly on to c onstruc t a 40-foot-widepave d
roa d , insta ll unde rground utilitie s be n e ath the roa d, a nd use the roa d

to
a c c om m odate a 440-housede ve lopm e nt on thepa rc e l of la nd known a s Se c tion 16. B e c a use we c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt la c ke d jurisdic tion ove r Ly on’ s c la im
re ga rding thesc o pe of the e a se m e nt, we va c at e the distric t c ourt’ s orde r and judgm e nts, a

nd dismi ss the c a se . Artic le III of the C onstitution “ lim its thejurisdic tion of fe de ra l c ourts to

‘ C a se s’ and ‘ C ontrove rsie s.’ ” Lujan v . De f e nde rs of W

ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 559 (1992) (quoting U.S. C onst. a rt. III, § 2). “ One e sse ntia l a spe c t of this re quire m e nt is tha t a ny pe rson invoking the

powe r of a

fe de ra l c o urt m

ust de m onstra

te sta nding to do so.” Hollingswo rth v . Pe rry , 133 S. C t. 2652, 2661 (2013). To sa tisfy the
re quire m e nts of Artic le III sta nding, a pla intiff m

ust “prove that he ha s suffe re d a

* * The Honora

ble John Antoon II, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the M iddle Distric t

of Florida , sitting by

de s igna tion. 2c onc re te and pa rtic ula riz e d injury

tha t is fa irly tra c e a

ble to the c ha lle nge d c onduc t,
and is like ly

to be re d re sse d by a favora ble judic ia l de c ision.” Id. U n de r Artic le III,

“ an ‘ a c tua l c ontrove rsy ’ ” m

u st “pe rsist throughout a

ll sta ge s of litiga

tion.” Id. (quoting Alre ady

, LLC v . N

ik e , Inc ., 133 S. C t. 721, 726 (2013)). W e c onc lude d in 2010 tha t Ly on la c ke d sta

nding to a sse rt his c la im
re ga rding thesc o pe of the M urphy R oa d e a se m e nt be c a use the re wa s no “ live
c ontrove rsy

with re ga rd to the sc ope of a

ny e a s e m e nt,” and “ no pa

rtic ula riz e d or im m ine nt injury arising out of tha t disa gre e m e nt.” Ly on v . Gila Riv e r Indian C mty . , 626 F.3d 1059, 1074 (9th C ir. 2010). On re m and for re solution of a distinc t issue , Ly on a rgue d tha t a n a c tua l c ontrove rsy

ha d de ve lope d due to c ha nge d fa c tua l
c irc um s ta nc e s tha t oc c urre d a fte r our 2010 de c ision, providing him with the sta nding ne c e ssa

ry to a sse rt the re le va

nt c la im . The distric t c ourt a gre e d. As a ge ne ra l rule , howe ve r, “ sta nding is de te rm ine d a s of the
c om m e n c e m e nt of the litiga

t ion.” Yamada v . Snipe

s , 786 F.3d 1182, 1203 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Biodiv e rsity Le gal Found. v . Badgle

y , 309 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th C ir. 2002)); s e ealso De

fe nde rs of W

ildlife , 504 U.S. a

t 569 n.4 (quoting N

e w manGre e n, Inc . v . Alfonzo-Larrain , 490 U.S. 826, 839 (1989) (“ The e xiste n c e of fe de ra l jurisdic tion ordina rily de pe nds on thefa c t s a s the y e xist whe n the
c om pla i nt is file d.” )). W e have he ld tha t , “ [a ] s with a ll que stions of subje c t m atte r
3jurisdic tion e xc e pt m ootne ss, sta nding is de te rm ine d

a s of the date of the filing of the c om pla i nt,” and tha

t “ [t] he pa

rty invoking the

jurisdic tion of thec ourt c annot
re ly on e ve nts tha

t unfolde d a fte r the filing of thec om p la int to e sta

blish its sta nding.” W

ilbur v . Loc k

e , 423 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th C i r. 2005) abrogate d on othe r grounds by

Le v in v . C

omme rc eEne rgy

, Inc
. , 560 U.S. 413 (2010). Although this ge

ne ra l rule is subje c t

to a fe w e xc e ptions, Righthav e n LLC v . Hoe hn , 716 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th C ir. 2013), nonea p ply he re . Ly on re lie s on the
e xc e ption se t forth in N

orthstar Financ i al Adv isors Inc . v . Sc hw ab Inv e stme nts , 779 F.3d 1036 (9th C ir. 2015). In N orthstar , we he ld tha

t a supple m e nta l ple a ding unde r Fe de ra l R

u le of C i vil Proc e dure 15(d), ba se d on fa c ts tha t oc c urre d a fte r the filing of theorigina l c om

pla int, c ould c ure sta

nding de fic ie nc i e s tha

t e xiste d at the tim e of the origina l c o m

pla i nt. Id. at

1044. Ye t , Ly on ne ve r file d, or atte m pte d to file , an am e nde d or supple m e nta l c om pla i nt. Ly on urge s tha

t N orthstar is none the le ss a

pplic a ble to the pre se nt fa c ts be c a use the distric t c ourt’ s Se pte m be r 2014 pre -tria l orde r m ay func t ion a s a

n
am e nde d c o m

pla int. This overe xte nds N orthstar ’ s re a soning. In N orthstar , we indic ate d the lim ite d sc ope o f our ruling, observing, “ in orde r to de c ide this c a se , it is e nough to sa

y tha t the rule a s sta

te d in Morongo ,” re quiring subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion to e xist a

t the tim e the a c tion c om

m e n c e s , “ doe s not e xte n d to
4supple m e nta l ple a dings file d pursua nt to Fe d. R . C iv. P. 15(d).” Id
. (re fe re nc ing Morongo Band of Mission Indians v . C alifornia State

Board of Equalization , 858 F.2d 1376 (9th C ir. 1988)). M ore ove r, we a llowe d the pla intiff in N orthstar to c ure a

jurisdic tiona l de fe c t with a

supple m e nta l ple a ding ra the r tha n re quiring thefiling of a ne w la wsuit be c a

use , unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s of tha

t c a se , instituting a

ne w a c tion wa s sim ply a “ ne e dle ss form a lity .” Id . at 1044 (c ita t ion om itte d). Tha

t is not the

c a se he re . The pa

rtie s a gre e that re quiring Ly on to initia te a ne wla wsuit would not ha

ve

“ e l e vate d form

ove r substa

nc e ,” but ra

the r, c ould ha

ve ha d a re a l im pa c t re ga rding the C om m unity ’ s opportunity

to invoketriba l sove re i gn im m unity
. Se eid. at 1044. Although Ly on ha d sta

nding to a sse rt othe r c la im s throughout this la wsuit,

“ a pla intiff m

ust de m o nstra

te sta nding for e a c h c l a im

he se e ks to pre ss a

nd for e a c h form of re lie f that is sought.” Dav is v . Fe d. Ele c tion C omm’n , 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2009) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d) (quoting Daimle rC h ry sle r C orp. v . C uno , 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006)). We he ld tha t Ly on la c ke d sta

nding for his c la im
re ga rding thesc o pe of the M urphy R oa d e a se m e nt. Ly on , 626 F.3d a t 1074. In the
a bse nc e of a

n am e nde d c om

pla int unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 15(d), se e N orthstar , 779 F.3d 1036, or othe r e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta

nc e s, this sta

nding de fe c t
m ay not be c ure d by

late r fa c t ua l de ve lopm e nts. The distric t c ourt the re fore e rre d

5in de te rm ining tha t it ha d jurisdic tion to a djudic ate Ly on’ s c la im re g arding the
sc ope o f the M urphy

R oa d e a s e m e nt. C osts to be taxe d a ga inst plaintiff in fa vor of de fe nda

nt. V ACAT E D AND DISM ISSE D.

6