Tourgeman

ORDER RE: ARTICLE III STANDING

On May 18, 2016, Defendant Nelson & Kennard requested the Court hold a hearing to discuss the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1640 , 194 L.Ed.2d 636 (2016), on the scope and timing of the upcoming trial, which is currently scheduled to begin on July 18, 2016, [Doc. No. 467.] The Court received briefing on the subject and a hearing was held on June 6, 2016. [Doc. Nos. 460, 461.]

In Spokeo, the Supreme Court clarified that the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing requires a plaintiff to show that he/she “suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’ ” Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1648 (citations omitted). To establish particularization the injury “must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Id. For an injury to be concrete it “must be ‘de facto’; that is, it must actually exist.” Id. Intangible injuries can nevertheless be concrete and while the history and judgment of Congress play important roles when determining whether an intangible harm constitutes an injury…