Opinion ID: 2559108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the distinction between standing requirements at the motion to dismiss and the summary judgment stage

Text: To properly assess whether the respective allegations of Mr. Breakman and Mr. Grayson are sufficient to demonstrate constitutional standing, we must first determine what that inquiry entails during the various stages of litigation. At the pleading stage and when facing a motion to dismiss, a complaint that contains general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice; a motion to dismiss presume[s] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim. [75] For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of constitutional standing, both the trial and reviewing courts must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party. [76] Before ruling on the motion to dismiss, it is within the trial court's power to allow or to require the plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the complaint or by affidavits, further particularized allegations of fact deemed supportive of plaintiff's standing; and [i]f, after this opportunity, the plaintiff's standing does not adequately appear from all materials of record, the complaint must be dismissed. [77] When a lawsuit reaches the summary judgment stage, the mere allegations of the pleadings become insufficient. Constitutional standing must be shown through specific facts set forth by affidavit or other evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment. [78] To meet these varied burdens, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the following: (1) the plaintiff['s] . . . injury in factan invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained ofthe injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court; [and] (3) a likelihood, as opposed to mere speculation, that an injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. [79] As appellants' lawsuits were dismissed at the pleading stages, we review the substance of their pleadings to determine whether general factual allegations satisfying each of these requirements have been averred.