Focused Read 3 minutes
more if you choose to read the document in full
more if you choose to read the document in full
(There is no thought for the day and the only action suggested to take today is to inform yourself as to the details of this lawsuit so you can correct #BigLies, as needed...)
~ Personal Commentary
If you really want to know what the
“Final Order of Dismissal” of the lawsuit brought against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz says, you'll have to read it.
Spoiler Alert: The bottom line is those who were
suing did not have standing to sue and
the lawsuit was dismissed.
Excerpts follow below.
(The full document is linked below...)
(The full document is linked below...)
I encourage those who are
interested in the case to read the document, as the court fully
explains the reasoning behind its decision. This blog
highlights self-selected key points and does not provide all of the
information and or the context as is provided by the court.)
* Please note: Complaints filed in lawsuits are assumed to be made in good faith, i.e. to be true, while being tested for legal standing in a court of law -- THAT is PROCESS...determining legal standing based on law and in this case the law rejected legal standing, i.e. the complainers did not make a case worthy of proceeding in the court!
Lawsuit claiming the DNC, Chaired by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz rigged the 2016 Presidential Election against Senator Sanders is dismissed Due to “Lack of Standing”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 16-61511-CIV-ZLOCH
CASE NO. 16-61511-CIV-ZLOCH
CAROL WILDING, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DNC SERVICES CORP.,
d/b/a/
Democratic National
Committee and
DEBORAH WASSERMAN
SCHULTZ,
Defendants.
FINAL
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER is before the
Court upon Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint. The Court has carefully reviewed said
Motion, the entire court file, and, with the benefit of oral argument,
is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
This case, in short,
involves allegations that the Democratic National Committee was in
cahoots with the Clinton campaign and sought to tip the scales in her
favor in the Democratic primaries...
Plaintiffs discovered what
they believe is evidence of that bias after the DNC’s computer servers
were penetrated by hackers.
In evaluating Plaintiffs’
claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—
Plaintiffs assert several fraud-type claims.
But they do not allege
they ever heard or acted upon the DNC’s claims of neutrality.
Plaintiffs also assert a
tort claim on behalf of all registered Democrats, even though the
harm they allege impacted all Democratic-primary-eligible
voters——and under heir theory, the entire body politic——the
same way.
And finally, Plaintiffs
claim that donors to the DNC are at an increased risk of identity
theft as a result of the computer hack. But they do not allege that
the DNC regularly keeps the type of information necessary to
facilitate identity theft or that the hackers targeted, much less
obtained, that information.
The Court must now decide
whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to
them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and
its former chair’s conduct——the keys to entering federal court.
The Court holds that they
have not, which means the truth of their claims cannot be tested in
this Court.
The DNC’s bias,
according to Plaintiffs, came to light after computer hackers
penetrated the DNC’s computer network. An individual identified as
“Guccifer 2.0"took credit for the hack and posted several
documents purportedly taken from the DNC’s servers on a publically accessible website.
As a result of the
information “Guccifer 2.0" released, Plaintiffs conclude that
“the DNC was anything but ‘impartial,’‘evenhanded,’ or
‘neutral’ with respect to the Democratic nominating process.” And all while Wasserman Schultz was the DNC’s chair.
Plaintiffs bring six causes of action on behalf of three proposed
classes.
The DNC and Wasserman Schultz have moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on various grounds. The DNC and Wasserman Schultz argue that
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims, that they have
insufficiently pled those claims, and that the class allegations must
be stricken as facially deficient.
This Order
does not concern who should have been the Democratic Party’s
candidate for the 2016 presidential election; it does not concern
whether the DNC or Wasserman Schultz generally acted unfairly towards
Senator Sanders or his supporters; indeed, it does not even concern
whether the DNC was in fact biased in favor of Hillary Clinton in the
Democratic primaries. At this stage, the Court is required to
construe the First Amended Complaint in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs and accept its well-pled allegations as true.
This Order therefore
concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter
jurisdiction. To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general
grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their
redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or
their right of free speech——not through the judiciary. To the
extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in
specific factual allegations, it is this Court’s emphatic duty to
measure Plaintiffs’ pleadings against existing legal standards.
Having done so, and for the reasons that follow, the Court finds that
the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in
federal court.
It is readily apparent
that this Court lacks jurisdiction under § 1332(a), for the Parties
are not completely diverse.
Putting aside these
pleading deficiencies, it is also apparent that Plaintiffs lack
standing to assert each of the causes of action raised in this
putative class action. In order to maintain a class action lawsuit,
the class representatives——as distinct from the putative class
members——must establish their standing to sue...
The Supreme Court has made
clear that “[n]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s
proper role in our system of government than the constitutional
limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or
controversies.” Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341
(2006) (internal marks omitted). To effectuate this limitation, Lujan
laid out three basic elements of Article III standing:
“First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’——an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) ‘actual or ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’’” Lujan, 504 U.S. At560 (citations omitted).
“Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of . . ..”
“Third, it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’”
“First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’——an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) ‘actual or ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’’” Lujan, 504 U.S. At560 (citations omitted).
“Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of . . ..”
“Third, it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’”
As to the
fraud-type claims Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs fail to allege
any causal connection between their injuries and Defendants’
statements.
Absent such allegations,
these Plaintiffs lack standing.
(“A pleading that offers
‘labels and conclusions’or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.’”).
The act of
donating to an organization does not, of itself, create a legally
protected interest in the organization’s operations.
...donating to the DNC or to Bernie
Sanders’s campaign does not entitle Plaintiffs to challenge the
manner in which the DNC has conducted its affairs.
Grave questions regarding
the DNC’sright of association would undoubtedly arise if this Court
were to enjoin the DNC to a particular manner of governance. And
those same concerns would arise with respect to any award of
damages,which would impose liability for the DNC’s alleged decision
to associate with a particular standard-bearer in a manner
not otherwise prohibited by law.
And even if
the Court assumed that the DNC did store the named DNC Donor Class
Plaintiffs’ sensitive personal information on the hacked servers,
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint still would not make out
an injury that is “certainly impending.”
… none of the DNC donor Plaintiffs
have suggested they were the victim of a failed identity theft
attempt. And unlike Pisciotta and Galaria, these Plaintiffs do not
allege that their personal information was targeted for the purpose
of future criminal misuse. The First Amended Complaint instead
paints a picture that hackers were generally rummaging the DNC’s
files for information pertinent to the presidential election.
The named DNC Donor Plaintiffs do not allege that hackers targeted their
information, took it, or would be able to make use of it to inflict
some harm in the future.
Conclusion
“Federal Courts cannot exercise
jurisdiction over cases where the parties lack standing.”
Because Plaintiffs do not allege a
causal link between their donations and the DNC’s statements, they
lack standing to assert the fraud-type claims in Counts I, II, III,
and IV of the First Amended Complaint.
Their breach of
fiduciary duty claim in Count V relies on a harm far too diffuse to
constitute an injury-in-fact in federal court. And their negligence
claim in Count VI is buffered by too many layers of speculation and
conjecture to create the immediacy of harm necessary to unlock this
Court’s jurisdiction.
That being so, Plaintiffs have not
“present[ed] a live case or controversy,” and the Court “must
dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
as follows:
- Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and
- The above-styled cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DONE AND ORDERED in
Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 25th day of
August, 2017.
WILLIAM J. ZLOCH
Sr. United States District
Judge
You can read the document in
full here
.
.
.
→ Direct sources for Democrats:
* ( Personal favored and most informative follows are shared here with the understanding that readers will always apply their own critical thinking to any information provided anywhere by anyone. #StrongerTogether does not share sources of information lightly but -- no one is perfect! -- so always #DistrustAndVerify I am using a star rating that is strictly based on my situational experience with the work of the media personality specifically in relation to issues of interest to me. )
The Democratic Party Website
C-SPAN (a good place for speeches & hearings direct source (s))
→ Some of my favorite, most informative
follows on Twitter include:
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ US Intelligence | Author | Navy Senior Chief | NBC/MSNBC
⭐⭐⭐ Federal Government Operations | Vanity Fair | Newsweek | MSNBC Contributor | Author
⭐⭐⭐ Political/Gov. Legal Opinions | MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent | Emmy-winning reporter | Host of The Beat With Ari
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Voting Rights/Voter Suppression | Author | Mother Jones
→ Some of the most credible media -- at the moment:
→ Some of the most credible Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
Thank you for Networking for Democrats today!
.
.
.
(Linked) "...is our 2016 platform...a declaration of how we plan to move America forward. Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.
(Remember 2018...)
*
Curated by Gail Mountain, with occasional personal commentary, Network For #StrongerTogether ! is not affiliated with The Democratic Party in any capacity. This is an independent blog and the hope is you will, at a glance, learn more about the Party and you will, with a click or two, also take action on its behalf as it is provided!
( You can also find me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GKMTNtwits )
*
You can find Vote411 here
Thank you for focusing!
g., aka Democrat
No comments:
Post a Comment