{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "9:08-cv-01389-KAM Document 209 Filed 07/06/2019 Page 3 of 20",
    "date": "07/06/2019",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Petitioners lack Article III standing and because the claims raised by Petitioners in these proceedings are not constitutionally ripe.\n\nI. The Claims Raised in the Petition Must Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because the Petitioners Lack Standing to Bring Those Claims.\n\nThese proceedings pursuant to the CVRA must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Petitioners lack standing to pursue the remedies that they are seeking for alleged CVRA violations. As the Supreme Court has explained,\n\nto satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an \"injury in fact\" that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.\n\nFriends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Moreover, \"a plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought.\" Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 185.\n\nHere, the record incontrovertibly demonstrates that Petitioners cannot satisfy the third prong of the standing test, and the Petition and these proceedings must accordingly be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 E.g., Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida\n\ncourt's jurisdiction, a \"trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case\" without presuming the truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations.\n\nMakro Capital of America, Inc. v. UBS AG, 543 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., McMaster v. United States, 177 F.3d 936, 940 (11th Cir. 1999) (\"[W]e determine whether this lawsuit survives the government's factual attack [on subject matter jurisdiction] by looking to matters outside the pleadings, and we do not accord any presumptive truthfulness to the allegations in the complaint.\"); Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957, 960-61 (11th Cir. 1999).\n\n2 Although Petitioners also fail to satisfy the first and second prongs of the standing test,",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Petitioners lack Article III standing and because the claims raised by Petitioners in these proceedings are not constitutionally ripe.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The Claims Raised in the Petition Must Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because the Petitioners Lack Standing to Bring Those Claims.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "These proceedings pursuant to the CVRA must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Petitioners lack standing to pursue the remedies that they are seeking for alleged CVRA violations. As the Supreme Court has explained,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an \"injury in fact\" that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Moreover, \"a plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought.\" Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 185.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, the record incontrovertibly demonstrates that Petitioners cannot satisfy the third prong of the standing test, and the Petition and these proceedings must accordingly be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 E.g., Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "court's jurisdiction, a \"trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case\" without presuming the truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Makro Capital of America, Inc. v. UBS AG, 543 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., McMaster v. United States, 177 F.3d 936, 940 (11th Cir. 1999) (\"[W]e determine whether this lawsuit survives the government's factual attack [on subject matter jurisdiction] by looking to matters outside the pleadings, and we do not accord any presumptive truthfulness to the allegations in the complaint.\"); Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957, 960-61 (11th Cir. 1999).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 Although Petitioners also fail to satisfy the first and second prongs of the standing test,",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Friends of the Earth, Inc.",
      "Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.",
      "Young Apartments, Inc.",
      "Town of Jupiter",
      "Makro Capital of America, Inc.",
      "UBS AG",
      "Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc.",
      "South Florida",
      "McMaster",
      "United States",
      "Scarfo",
      "Ginsberg"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Jupiter"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2000",
      "2008",
      "1994",
      "07/06/2019",
      "1999"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "9:08-cv-01389-KAM",
      "Document 209",
      "528 U.S. 167",
      "529 F.3d 1027",
      "20 F.3d 1118",
      "543 F.3d 1254",
      "177 F.3d 936",
      "175 F.3d 957"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes citations to various court cases and legal references."
}