Opinion ID: 3063857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kaloe’s Standing

Text: A party must have standing to maintain a claim. “[T]he question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 2205 (1975). Kaloe would have standing to maintain a breach of contract claim against Goltens on ADG and Goltens’ contracts if Kaloe had an agency relationship with ADG. See Ford v. Williams, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 287, 289 (1858) (“The contract of the agent is the contract of the principal, and he may sue or be sued thereon, though not named therein.”). Kaloe argues that its amended complaint sufficiently alleges an agency relationship between Kaloe and ADG. The amended complaint alleges that “[t]he parties [Kaloe and Goltens] entered a series of written contracts for the repairs to the [vessel’s] engine’s component parts.” (Amended Compl. ¶ 12). It further alleges that “[e]ach of these agreements w[as] reduced to writing and executed by the parties or their respective agents.” (Amended Compl. ¶ 13) (emphasis added). It includes as attachments copies of the contracts between ADG and Goltens on which Kaloe has filed suit. The contracts state that ADG signed on behalf of the vessel’s owner. Although the amended complaint alleges that Kaloe is the vessel’s owner, 6 but fails to identify who the parties’ agents are or even mention ADG by name, Kaloe nonetheless has pleaded enough facts, the amendment of which could allege that ADG was Kaloe’s agent. Since Kaloe may be able to allege an agency relationship with ADG, and thus have standing to sue on ADG and Goltens’ contracts, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by finding that amendment would be futile.