conduct, and that a favorable decision will redress the harm. Nat'l Resources Defense Council v. Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc., 2 F.3d 493, 504 (3d. Cir. 1993).
The Fair Housing Council clearly has standing under Havens to assert claims for injury to itself. Nevertheless, the Fair Housing Council has not fulfilled its burden of showing that it has standing to assert claims on behalf of its members. For example, it has not alleged that any of its members would have had standing to assert claims against defendants on their own. The Fair Housing Council has not even alleged in its complaint that any of its individual members have been injured by defendants' conduct. Instead, it has asked this court to construe its allegation in its complaint that "persons were injured in their person and property," to include its members. We decline to do so. This general allegation by plaintiff cannot be held to have met the tests delineated above. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiff has standing to assert claims for injury to itself but not to assert claims on behalf of its members.
Nevertheless, since leave to amend is usually granted quite freely, we will give plaintiff thirty days to amend its complaint to properly allege injuries to its members, if it chooses to do so. See e.g. Dole v. Arco Chemical Co., 921 F.2d 484, 486-7 (3d. Cir. 1990).
Finally, we note that defendants have also argued that the advertisement was not discriminatory, and that the issue is moot since the advertisement is no longer being printed. Plaintiff has responded that the issue of whether the advertisement is discriminatory is for the jury to decide, and that the issue is not moot since they have claimed that defendants have allegedly discriminatory policies.
Whether the advertisement was in fact discriminatory is not an issue we will decide at this time since we are at the pleading stage of the litigation. Furthermore, the issue of whether the advertisement was discriminatory is not moot even if the advertisement is no longer in print, since the Fair Housing Council is suing for past injury, and it is also alleging that defendant's actions are part of their overall discriminatory policies. The Fair Housing Council could still be entitled to recover for its past injuries, even if the advertisement is no longer being circulated. In addition, by alleging that defendants have discriminatory policies, plaintiffs are not suing defendants based on a single incident such that the withdrawal of the advertisement could render this litigation moot. Therefore, defendants' arguments in this regard must fail.
In light of the foregoing, the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. We hold that plaintiff Fair Housing Council has standing to assert claims for its own injuries, but not that of its members. If plaintiff wishes to amend its complaint to meet the standing requirements for asserting claims on behalf of its members, it has thirty days to do so.
An appropriate Order follows.
AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 1996, upon consideration of Defendants Herb and Doaty Realty and Greg Herb's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, said motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff Fair Housing Council has standing to assert claims on its own behalf but not on behalf of its members.
FURTHER, if plaintiff wishes to amend its complaint to meet the standing requirements for asserting claims on behalf of its members, it has thirty days to do so.
BY THE COURT:
J. Curtis Joyner, J.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.