Legal Opinion

Pactiv Corp. v. Chester

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided January 30, 2006No. CIV.05-71116PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION UNDER F.R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1)

FEIKENS, District Judge.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), Defendants contest this Court’s jurisdiction over this case 1 in lieu of an Answer, claiming there is a lack of standing and ripeness based on insufficient injury to Plaintiff. For the reasons below, I find that while Plaintiff satisfies its burden to allege standing on all claims, only the claims as to M.C.L. §§ 324.20114(1)(h) and 324.20137(1) are sufficiently ripe, and therefore GRANT in part Defendants’ motion. Finally, I decline to…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Bennett v. SpearSupreme Court of the United States · 1997

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pactiv Corp. v. ChesterDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2006
  2. Saline River Properties, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2011
  3. Cawood v. Seterus, Inc. (In re Cawood)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API