Opinion ID: 2601765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: although standing is a jurisdictional requirement under which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, the plaintiff's burden corresponds to the burden associated with dispositive motions at various stages of litigation

Text: ¶ 12 As to federal courts, standing is a constitutional requirement, derived from Article III of the United States Constitution, which limits the judicial authority of the federal courts to `actual cases or controversies.' [8] Although the Utah Constitution includes no similar express limitation, we have held it nevertheless mandates certain standing requirements, which emanate from the principle of separation of powers. [9] Accordingly, in Utah, as in the federal system, standing is a jurisdictional requirement. [10] ¶ 13 Jurisdictional challenges, in contrast to challenges to the merits of a plaintiff's claims, raise fundamental questions regarding a court's basic authority over the dispute. And a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court is unique among jurisdictional challenges in that it is not only given its own procedural vehiclerule 12(b)(1) [11] but can be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal. [12] ¶ 14 But despite the fundamental nature of standing as a jurisdictional prerequisite to adjudication, requiring a plaintiff to provide full proof of standing at the moment of challenge, regardless of the stage of litigation, risks creating premature and unduly burdensome mini-trials on standing at times when the precise contours of the dispute are just developing. And because issues relevant to the standing inquiry, such as the extent or likelihood of an injury and the causal link between the alleged injury and the defendant's conduct, are often bound up with the merits of the plaintiff's case, requiring that a plaintiff prove standing immediately upon challenge would impose a burden on the plaintiff inconsistent with the burden imposed regarding the merits of his claims. Faced with such a burden, plaintiffs who are not yet required to prove the merits of their claims could nevertheless have their claims dismissed for failure to prove standing prior to discovery. We have rejected this approach in the past, with regard to both standing and other jurisdictional challenges. [13] We find the United States Supreme Court's analysis helpful in explaining the appropriate approach: The party invoking ... jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements [i.e., the elements of standing]. Since they are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation. At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim. In response to a summary judgment motion, however, the plaintiff can no longer rest on such mere allegations, but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts, which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true. And at the final stage, those facts (if controverted) must be supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial. [14] ¶ 15 Accordingly, we now make clear that, although a challenge to standing is jurisdictional and may be brought at any stage of the litigation, such a challenge is to be evaluated under the standard used for a dispositive motion at the relevant stage of litigation.