The following excerpt is from In re Qualcomm Litig., Case No.: 17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal. 2017):
A case that lacks Article III standing must be dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2001). Since
Page 4
standing is essential to a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction, the issue of standing is properly raised in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.