Opinion ID: 167827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MSLF's Standing

Text: 17 As we recently noted, [s]tanding is determined as of the time the action is brought. Nova Health Sys. v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir.2005) ( citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) ([W]e have an obligation to assure ourselves that [plaintiff] had Article III standing at the outset of the litigation.); Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003) (Article III standing must be determined as of the time at which the plaintiff's complaint is filed.); Carr v. Alta Verde Indus., Inc., 931 F.2d 1055, 1061 (5th Cir.1991) (As with all questions of subject matter jurisdiction except mootness, standing is determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.)). Therefore, we must evaluate MSLF's standing as of the time it filed its complaint.
18 MSLF is relying on the doctrine of associational standing in this case and is not asserting separate independent injury to itself. Thus, because MSLF is an association bringing suit on behalf of its members, it could only have standing if (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 342-43, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). Although this quotation refers to members, plural, if even one member of the association would have had standing to sue in his or her own right, that is sufficient. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (The association must allege that its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action.) (emphasis added).
19 In evaluating whether the first prong of associational standing has been met, we ask whether any member of MSLF would have had standing individually to bring these claims. The requirements for an individual to have standing in federal court are threefold. 20 First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact — an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between that injury and the challenged action of the defendant — the injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party. Finally, it must be likely, not merely speculative, that a favorable judgment will redress the plaintiff's injury. 21 Nova Health Sys., 416 F.3d at 1154 (internal citations omitted). We therefore must evaluate whether any individual MSLF members, at the time MSLF filed its complaint, see id., had suffered a redressible injury caused by Defendants.
22 The party asserting jurisdiction — here, MSLF — has the burden of establishing the elements of standing. Id. (As the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff ... has the burden of establishing each of the[ ] three elements of Article III standing.). Because standing was challenged in a motion that was alternatively designated as a motion for summary judgment, MSLF must `set forth' by affidavit or other evidence `specific facts,' which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (internal citation omitted); see also Nova Health Sys., 416 F.3d at 1154 (At the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts that, if taken as true, establish each of the[ ] elements [of standing].); Cf. United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 743, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995) (We have ... made clear that it is the burden of the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute. And when a case has proceeded to final judgment after a trial, as this case has, those facts (if controverted) must be supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial to avoid dismissal on standing grounds.) (quotations, citations omitted). Moreover, MSLF concedes on appeal that standing in this case should now be evaluated under summary judgment standards because it acknowledged it is required to demonstrate specific facts necessary to support the claim of injury.
23
24 MSLF claims that it has established the specific facts necessary to show individual standing through an MSLF member — specifically, Don Wood. It points to the affidavit of Mr. Wood, which states that he is a member of MSLF and that his business, Southwest Stone, mined alabaster from mines on what is now Monument land for nearly 20 years. Approximately sixty to seventy percent of Southwest Stone's alabaster sales came from three such mines. In 1998, the Bureau of Land Management voided Southwest Stone's three mining claims for failure to comply with annual filing requirements. Because the Monument had been established in the area two years earlier, Southwest Stone was unable to refile its mining claims, the loss of which put Southwest Stone out of business in 1999. Mr. Wood maintains in his affidavit that [b]ut for the creation of the Monument, he and his business partner would simply have refiled the claims and preserved our business. MSLF argues that this inability to refile the mining claims by Mr. Wood is the injury-in-fact and that Mr. Wood owes the loss of his entire business and livelihood to the designation of the Monument. 5 25
26 There is a glaring problem with MSLF's reliance on this alleged injury to Mr. Wood, even taking all of the facts alleged in his affidavit as true, Nova Health Sys., 416 F.3d at 1154. MSLF's Complaint in this action was filed on November 5, 1997, and its Amended Complaint was filed on December 15, 1997. Mr. Wood's mining claims, however, were not voided until 1998. Thus, Mr. Wood's alleged injury — the inability to refile his three voided mining claims — could not have occurred until after the time th[is] action [wa]s brought. Nova Health Sys., 416 F.3d at 1154. Because standing is determined as of the time of the filing of the complaint, Mr. Wood's alleged injury cannot serve as a basis for MSLF's standing in this case. 6 27
28 Because MSLF relies solely on Mr. Wood's declaration for the specific facts necessary to support its standing allegations, 7 our conclusion that Mr. Wood's affidavit does not demonstrate an injury-in-fact as of the time the action [wa]s brought means that MSLF has not met its burden of establishing constitutional standing to bring this action. 8