Patrick Berry v. webloyalty.com, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Patrick Berry v. webloyalty.com, Inc.

517 F. App'x 581

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 2013

Docket11-55764

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 517 F. App'x 581 (Patrick Berry v. webloyalty.com, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patrick Berry v. webloyalty.com, Inc., 517 F. App'x 581 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Patrick Berry appeals the district court’s dismissal of his suit for failure to state a claim against Webloyalty.com and Movietickets.com. We vacate and remand because Berry lacks Article III standing.

“To invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” Berry “must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the *582 Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). To have constitutional standing under Article III, a party must demonstrate an injury in fact that is traceable to the challenged action and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). At the motion to dismiss stage, we accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the nonmov-ing party’s favor. Ass’n for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Cnty. of L.A, 648 F.3d 986, 991 (9th Cir.2011). “[Bjecause issues of constitutional standing are jurisdictional, they must be addressed whenever raised.” Pershing Park Villas Homeowners Ass’n v. United Pacific Ins. Co., 219 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.2000).

Berry has alleged no injury in fact sufficient to support Article III standing. The record reveals Berry was fully compensated by Webloyalty.com for the $36.00 charged against his debit card. The $1.00 charge appearing in his account history is clearly marked as a debit card authorization rather than as an actual charge. Berry has not shown that he incurred any other injury as a result of defendants’ actions.

Because we hold that Berry lacks standing, we do not reach his other contentions. We “vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.” Fleck & Assocs. v. Phoenix, City of, 471 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir.2006).

VACATED, and REMANDED with instructions.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Patrick Berry appeals the district court’s dismissal of his suit for failure to state a claim against Webloyalty.com and Movietickets.com. We vacate and remand because Berry lacks Article III standing.

“To invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” Berry “must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the *582 Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). To have constitutional standing under Article III, a party must demonstrate an injury in fact that is traceable to the challenged action and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). At the motion to dismiss stage, we accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the nonmov-ing party’s favor. Ass’n for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Cnty. of L.A, 648 F.3d 986, 991 (9th Cir.2011). “[Bjecause issues of constitutional standing are jurisdictional, they must be addressed whenever raised.” Pershing Park Villas Homeowners Ass’n v. United Pacific Ins. Co., 219 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.2000).

Berry has alleged no injury in fact sufficient to support Article III standing. The record reveals Berry was fully compensated by Webloyalty.com for the $36.00 charged against his debit card. The $1.00 charge appearing in his account history is clearly marked as a debit card authorization rather than as an actual charge. Berry has not shown that he incurred any other injury as a result of defendants’ actions.

Because we hold that Berry lacks standing, we do not reach his other contentions. We “vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.” Fleck & Assocs. v. Phoenix, City of, 471 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir.2006).

VACATED, and REMANDED with instructions.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 F. App'x 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-berry-v-webloyaltycom-inc-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack