Opinion ID: 1934503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Plaintiffs' Interest

Text: The State argues that the challenged act does not affect any rights or obligations of the plaintiffs, but rather the rights and obligations of third-party holders of negotiable instruments and the consumer-makers thereof, and thus that the plaintiffs (usedcar dealers) have no right of action, i. e., no interest, La.C.Civ.P. art 927(5) to be adjudicated. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, allege that they have suffered and are continuing to suffer a substantial economic injury due to the implementation of the challenged act. Injury in fact, including competitive injury, is sufficient to vest standing in plaintiffs to bring an action to contest governmental action. Association of Data Processing Serv. Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970); Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 90 S.Ct. 832, 25 L.Ed.2d 192 (1970). [1] These and other cases are discussed in 6A Moore's Federal Practice, Sec. 57-11 (1973). The Data Processing case, supra, is particularly enlightening to the issue at bar. Petitioners were sellers of data processing services to businesses generally. The Comptroller of the Currency of the United States issued a ruling that national banks could make available to other banks and to bank customers data processing services as an incident to their banking services. Petitioners sued, attacking the ruling of the Comptroller. The District Court and the Court of Appeals both held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action. The United States Supreme Court reversed. In holding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, the United States Supreme Court pointed out that this issue concerns whether the interest sought to be protected by the complainant is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question. 397 U.S. 153, 90 S.Ct. 830, 25 L.Ed.2d 184. In view of the competitive injury to which the governmental regulation subjected the plaintiffs, they had standing to contest it. The cited case is analogous to the case at bar. The act challenged in this case, on its face, establishes that the plaintiffs have suffered a competitive injury. The act regulated all motor vehicle retail installment contracts except those in which the retail seller is a factory franchised new motor vehicle dealer. La.R.S. 6:969. Application of the act to non-franchised motor vehicle dealers such as the plaintiffs, while exempting franchised dealers, demonstrates at least a prima facie case of competitive injury. In addition, the plaintiffs introduced unrebutted evidence of a substantial economic disadvantage suffered by them in their competition with franchised new car dealers for the used car market as a result of the implementation of the challenged act. We find that the trial judge was correct in holding that the plaintiffs have established their standing to bring the present action.