3 ms·
Not my world (and I think GA has tighter org and assoc standings rules that would come into play here, too), but I’d argue that there’s a need to show individua
by HillRat 3y ago
Not my world (and I think GA has tighter org and assoc standings rules that would come into play here, too), but I’d argue that there’s a need to show individualized proof of harm here that runs afoul of the third Hunt prong. (This is pretty transparently an effort to avoid disclosing the plaintiffs’ names, so I’m not inclined to give this group the benefit of the doubt here.)
Also, upvoting you b/c Hunt is definitely applicable here!
- gnicholas 3y ago> I think GA has tighter org and assoc standings rules This was filed in federal court, so only federal rules regarding standing would apply. Also, this organization is led by the SFFA guy, who seems to have dotted his i's and crossed his t's with regard to standing in that lawsuit. There were never any serious discussions about standing in that case, and this one seems to be similarly structured. As a (former) lawyer, my educated guess is that standing will not be a major issue in this case. What stood out most to me is that it refers to the Civil Rights act of 1866!
- gnicholas 3y agoAh, now I see that the CRA of 1886 is mentioned because this is a "section 1981 claim" — one of the few types of lawsuits that rewards a successful plaintiff with attorney's fees. These are brought under the 1886 CRA, section 1981. This could turn into quite a cottage industry, since attorney's fees are a strong incentive when the odds of winning are good — or when it doesn't take much effort to file the complaint.