Whalen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINE WHALEN, et al., Case No. 23-cv-00459-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

v. DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 40, 42, 48 Defendants.

The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of Article III standing. The plaintiffs—25 individuals scattered throughout the United States—allege that a proposed merger between Albertsons and Kroger will harm competition among grocery stores throughout the country. But they have made no effort to explain how the merger would affect any one of them personally, in the area where they live and shop for groceries. See Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 495–500 (2009). Indeed, in their opposition to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs do not even attempt to explain how they might have Article III standing. They simply intone that the federal antitrust statutes give them the right to sue, which of course is beside the point for purposes of constitutional standing. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 341 (2016). The plaintiffs also lack…