Court Opinion

ID: 9817275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 04:11:46.9956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:32:00.508671
License: Public Domain

HANSEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I would not reach the prudential standing question resolved by the court in part I.C.l. of the opinion. It is unnecessary to decide this issue because, even assuming arguendo that Oti Kaga has prudential standing, we all agree that it has failed to show disparate treatment or disparate impact in its Pair Housing Act claims. The question whether a corporation may assert claims belonging to non-party individuals is an important one, and in my view, it would be more prudent for us to wait to answer that question until we are faced with a case in which the answer is necessary to the disposition of the case.
I join the opinion in all other respects.