Fernandez

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S DISMISSAL MOTION UNDER RULES 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(6)

Defendant moves under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for dismissal of Plaintiffs putative class action, arguing under Rule 12(b)(1): “Plaintiff lacks Article III standing [to pursue his claims] because he has not alleged a cognizable injury[ ] in[ ] fact traceable to any action by [Defendant], and the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” (Def.’s Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. Dismiss (“Mot.”) 2:9-10, ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff alleges subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (a) and 1332(d).

*1082 Plaintiffs allegations include the following:

(Compl. ¶¶ 1-4, 56.)

(Id. ¶ 5.)

Defendant argues:

(Mot. 1:12-19.)

Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “ ‘One element of the ease-or-controversy requirement’ is that plaintiff[ ] *1083 ‘must establish that [he has] standing to sue.’ ” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1146 , 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (quoting Raines v., Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 , 117 S.Ct. 2312 , 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997)). To…