Opinion ID: 799387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Justiciability Arguments

Text: The State spends several pages of its statement of facts recounting justiciability arguments raised in its motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) but not addressed in the district court's decision dismissing the case. Without further elaboration, the State incorporates these issues by reference in its argument section, contending they are implicitly at issue in any appeal raising a jurisdictional challenge. We need not dwell on these issues. In the district court, the State offered evidence it describes as casting doubt on CDIA's standing. The evidence relates to several subsections of the FCRISA the State maintains are in harmony with federal law. It urges us to review the evidence and make the appropriate findings of jurisdictional fact. But that job seems better suited for the district judge, who has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts. See Stuart v. Colo. Interstate Gas Co., 271 F.3d 1221, 1225 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1003 (10th Cir.1995)). Indeed, the challenged jurisdictional facts are so narrow that even if we decided them in the State's favor, remand would still be required because CDIA's standing would have been only mitigated, not eliminated. For instance, the State questions whether there is conflict between New Mexico and federal law with regard to issues like deadlines for responding to consumer requests or the type of proof required to trigger information removal, but omits mention of more notable conflicts namely, the absence of a provision in the FCRISA giving CRAs the ability to deny an information block in the event they conclude it was improvidently granted. Finally, the State makes cursory mention of a ripeness challenge, contending CDIA's suit is premature. But ripeness is seldom an obstacle to a pre-enforcement challenge in this posture, where the plaintiff faces a credible threat of enforcement, and should not be required to await and undergo [enforcement] as the sole means of seeking relief. See Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979) (quotation omitted); Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Watt, 696 F.2d 734, 741-43 (10th Cir.1982). For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.