Opinion ID: 32138
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standing Under the FHA

Text: 19 This Court reviews Case's standing challenge de novo. Maiz v. Virani, 311 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir.2002). 20 The Supreme Court has stated that [s]tanding is a jurisdictional requirement that focuses on the party seeking to get his or her complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he or she wishes to have adjudicated. United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742-43, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995). The FHA affords a private cause of action to any aggrieved person. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A). An aggrieved person includes any person who (1) claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice; or (2) believes that such person will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur. 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i). The Supreme Court has held that the sole requirement for standing under the FHA is the Article III minima. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 372, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982); see also San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 475 (9th Cir.1998). Three elements are required to establish Article III standing: 21 First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact — an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of.... Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. 22 Hays, 515 U.S. at 742-43, 115 S.Ct. 2431. 23 Case argues that Weaver does not have standing to sue for violations of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(d) (misrepresentation of unavailability) because Weaver does not assert that a misrepresentation was made to him personally. Case contends that the only alleged deception concerning the apartment's availability occurred during conversations between he and Lincoln, and Mrs. Case and Lincoln. Weaver asserts that the fact that Case's words evidencing the deception appear to have been directed toward Lincoln personally does not impact his standing to sue. We agree. Lincoln inquired into the availability of the apartment for both she and Weaver, in essence, she was the spokesperson for the couple. Weaver was present when the apartment suddenly became unavailable. The fact that Case's words may have been physically directed toward Lincoln is of no importance. It does not diminish Weaver's injury, nor the fact that Weaver's injury can be fairly traceable to Case's actions. See James v. City of Dallas, 254 F.3d 551, 564 (5th Cir.2001) (Causation requires that the injury be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, we reject Case's argument that Weaver lacked standing to sue.