Opinion ID: 2601765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the browns have adequately met their burden to show standing at this stage of the litigation because their allegations establish a reasonable probability of future injury

Text: ¶ 16 Because McIntyre's challenge to the Browns' standing was brought prior to discovery, the Browns' burden with respect to standing is identical to the burden they would bear on their substantive claim when facing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Browns' claims will survive McIntyre's motion so long as their allegations, taken as true, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, satisfy the requirements of our standing test. [15] We begin by clarifying the nature of the injury requirement of our standing jurisprudence in this case. We then determine whether the court of appeals was correct in affirming the district court's determination that the Browns lack standing to bring their claims.
¶ 17 The court of appeals referred almost exclusively to federal case law in formulating the standing requirements by which it judged the sufficiency of the Browns' complaint. [16] In doing so, it did not give adequate consideration to key differences between Utah and federal standing law that bear directly on this case. Although our standing requirements and the federal standing requirements are similar in that they contain the same three basic elementsinjury, causation, and redressabilitythey are not identical. [17] Indeed, the practical, historical, and state constitutional constraints that set the outer bounds of our standing jurisprudence are, as noted above, significantly different from the constraints imposed by the federal constitution. ¶ 18 Specifically, the court of appeals' citation to federal standing law for the proposition that an alleged future injury must be actual or imminent in order to confer standing is in conflict with our recent pronouncements on the issue. In Cedar Mountain Environmental, Inc. v. Tooele County, we reiterated our rule that a plaintiff may allege an actual or potential  injury to satisfy the personal injury element of our standing requirements. [18] In other words, we have made clear that an imminent injury is not required. ¶ 19 Yet we have never attempted to describe what qualifies as a potential injury that will satisfy our standing requirements in future injury cases. We take the opportunity to do so now. To establish standing based on allegations of a future injury, a plaintiff need not necessarily show that the alleged future injury is imminent, certainly impending, or even that its occurrence is more likely than not. Instead, a plaintiff seeking standing on the basis of a claim of future injury must, at a minimum, set forth allegations establishing that a reasonable probability, as opposed to a mere possibility, of future injury exists. ¶ 20 Although the phrase reasonable probability defies precise definition, it provides meaningful guidance. As noted above, a reasonable probability of future injury fits somewhere in between a mere possibility of future injury, on the one hand, and an imminent injury, on the other. When an alleged future injury falls within these two extremes, the determination of whether there is a reasonable probability of injury is an equitable one, which encompasses several different considerations, including the chance that the alleged injury will actually occur, the potential magnitude of the alleged injury, and the relative burdens that such an injury (or the mitigation thereof) would impose on the parties. ¶ 21 At the pleading stage of litigation, plaintiffs may satisfy our standing requirements merely by alleging that there is a reasonable probability that they will be injured by the defendant's conduct, so long as the complaint contains adequate factual context to satisfy our notice pleading requirements. For purposes of a motion to dismiss, an allegation that there is a reasonable probability of future injury will be assumed to `embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.' [19] But at subsequent stages of litigation, or at the pleading stage in the event that a plaintiff does not expressly allege a reasonable probability of future injury, the court must determine whether the plaintiff's allegations establish that a reasonable probability of future injury exists. Having set out the requirements of our standing law, we now evaluate the court of appeals' dismissal of the Browns' complaint in this case.
¶ 22 While the court of appeals acknowledged that the Browns had alleged that, when flooding occurs, they would suffer harm from McIntyre's bridge, the court nonetheless affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Browns' case on the ground that the alleged injury was too speculative to satisfy our standing requirements. The court of appeals found that, in order to obtain standing based on allegations of a future harm, the plaintiff must show that their alleged injury is imminent or certainly impending. [20] Because it found that the Browns' alleged injury depended on `contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated or indeed may not occur at all,' it determined that the Browns lacked standing. [21] In so doing, it erred. ¶ 23 As discussed above, our standing law requires only that a plaintiff show a reasonable probability of future injury; a plaintiff is not required to prove that his alleged injury is imminent or certain. And in this case, the Browns' complaint satisfies our injury requirement for purposes of a challenge to standing at the pleading stage of litigation. ¶ 24 The Browns' complaint, read in light of the attached SECOR Report, alleges that, when flooding occurs, it is very likely that McIntyre's bridge would cause a damming effect on the creek, resulting in increased erosion of the stream bank and corresponding reduction in lateral support to the escarpment atop which their property lies. Although the Browns do not allege that they are certain to be injured when flooding occurs, certainty of future injury is not required to obtain standing. The fact that an injury ultimately may not occur as anticipated, or at all, does not preclude standing if there is a reasonable probability that it will occur. ¶ 25 Here, the Browns have alleged that it is very likely they will be injured if a flood occurs. According to their allegations, a reasonable probability of injury, as we have defined it above, clearly exists. Taking the Browns' allegations as true, which we must for purposes of McIntyre's motion to dismiss, the Browns have established that there is more than a mere possibility of injury. They have set forth facts and express allegations demonstrating that their alleged injury is likely. This satisfies our reasonable probability standard at this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, we hold that the court of appeals erred by affirming, on the ground that the Browns' alleged injury was not immediate or certainly impending, the district court's dismissal of the Browns' complaint for lack of standing. [22]