There are a few basic legal doctrines that apply to all lawsuits. Three of these justiciability doctrines are the following: standing, mootness, and ripeness. This blog is meant to serve as a basic overview of these legal tenants and to assist you with deciding whether you are ready to file a lawsuit.
Standing
The basic idea of standing is that a plaintiff (the party initiating the lawsuit) must have some cognizable interest from the defendant (the party who the lawsuit is being initiated against). In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the standing requirement. Specifically, the Supreme Court said there must be three elements present:
- First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized and “actual or imminent” and not hypothetical.
- Next, there must be a causal connection that can be traced to the defendant and not the result of another third party.
- Lastly, it must be “likely” and not merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision from the court.
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559–60, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2135–36, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992).
Mootness
Mootness is the next legal concept that must be met before a lawsuit can be accepted by an appropriate court. In the legal context, an issue or case being “moot” means there is no legitimate reason for the lawsuit to go forward as the underlying case or controversy has been resolved. Courts only can adjudicate actual cases or controversies. Thus, when no dispute exists, it would be a waste of time, resources, etc. to continue.
For example, if a defendant voluntarily secedes the actions plaintiff was complaining of, the case becomes moot as there is nothing for the court to assist. Now, if the defendant begins the complained of actions again, the mootness issue dissipates as there is a controversy present.
Ripeness
Ripeness is the final justiciability doctrine. Ripeness, unlike mootness, concerns the timing of judicial intervention and prevents courts from entangling themselves in cases or controversies too early. In Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, the Supreme Court of the United States state that courts must “evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). The Abbot Laboratories case created a two-factor test to determine whether a dispute is ripe: “(1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Nat’l Park Hosp. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808, 123 S. Ct. 2026, 2030, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1017 (2003).
In sum, these three justiciability doctrines are essential in every case at every level of the legal system.
If you are looking to file a lawsuit, do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Dalton & Tomich. Their years of combined legal experience in various areas of the law will assist you with any legal problem you may face.
