Court Opinion

ID: 9571487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:32:08.790051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:29.167463
License: Public Domain

Judge Wynn
concurring with separate opinion.
Although I agree with the majority’s resolution of this matter, I separately concur because I do not believe that we needed to consider the merits of the North Carolina Equipment Company’s (“NCEC”) claim. Specifically, I find that NCEC lacked standing to contest the condemnation because as a month-to-month tenant it lacked a constitutionally sufficient interest in the property.
When analyzing issues of standing, this Court must focus on “whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 45 L. Ed. 2d. 343, 348 (1975). Indeed, standing does not focus upon the merits of the action, but rather is a necessary preliminary jurisdictional requirement which demonstrates that a litigant is entitled to judicial action. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750, 82 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1984).
Constitutionally, a plaintiff can only have standing if it satisfies the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the Constitution of the United States. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, 35 L. Ed. 2d 536 (1973). Under Supreme Court precedent, a plaintiff satisfies the Article III standing requirement if it meets a three-pronged test: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered “injury in fact”; (2) there must be a casual connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. *247Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351, 354 (1992). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing these three elements. See Burton v. Central Interstate LLRWC Comm’n, 23 F.3d 208, 209 (8th Cir. 1994).
Additionally, the Supreme Court has articulated three prudential limits on standing. First, courts should not adjudicate abstract questions of wide public significance which amount to generalized grievances. See Valley Forge v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 474, 70 L. Ed. 2d 700, 709 (1982). Second, the plaintiffs complaint must fall within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the statute in question. Id. Lastly, the plaintiff must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim on the legal rights of others. Id. It is this last prudential concern that is at issue in the case sub judice.
“Ordinarily, one may not claim standing ... to vindicate the constitutional rights of some third party.” Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 255, 97 L. Ed. 1586 (1953). There are two reasons for this limitation. First, courts should not unnecessarily adjudicate such rights, and it may be that the holders of those rights either do not wish to assert them, or will be able to enjoy them regardless of whether the in-court litigant is successful or not. See Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345-48, 80 L. Ed. 688 (1936). Second, our judicial system depends upon effective advocacy which is best achieved when the party with the greatest stake in the outcome of a judicial decision litigates it. See Singleton v. Wuff 428 U.S. 106, 49 L. Ed. 2d 826 (1976). That is, our judicial system is best served when the third party itself acts as a proponent for its own rights. Id. I note that the two exceptions to this rule — when the parties rights are inextricably bound and when the third party cannot assert his own right — are inapplicable here.
In the case sub judice, Calco, the owner of the condemned property is the real party in interest. Admittedly, NCEC, as a month-to-month tenant on the property, has some interest in whether Calco’s property is properly condemned. This interest, however, is de min-imis and therefore does not confer standing upon NCEC.
This case is similar to State v. Joyner, 286 N.C. 366, 211 S.E.2d 320 (1975), where the defendant-lessee contended that an ordinance was unconstitutionally applied to him because it equated to a taking of his property for a public purpose without compensation. Our Supreme Court, in rejecting this argument, stated that because the lessee had only a three-year lease term, “[t]he interference by the city *248with defendant’s vested rights in his leasehold was . . . minimal.” Id. at 375, 211 S.E.2d at 326. Accordingly, if a three-year lease term is considered too minimal to constitute a compensable interest, NCEC’s one-month term is undoubtedly a de minimis interest. Although the Court in Joyner failed to address the issue of standing, the fact that the Court considered a three-year lease term to constitute a minimal interest is persuasive in the case sub judice. Specifically, it implicitly holds that a party with a leasehold interest does not have a constitutional interest in the lessors property.
In sum, I would find that NCEC lacks a sufficient interest in the property and in reality is attempting to assert Calco’s rights in this action. Therefore, NCEC is not the real party in interest and the lower court’s decision should be affirmed on the basis of NCEC’s lack of standing.