Judge Stanley Blumenfeld of the Central District of California dismissed a challenge by out-of-state plaintiffs Dwinell and Buckell Family Wine to a California law that allows California wineries to sell to retailers in certain circumstances.
The court’s order dismissed the case due to the lack of standing. After a lengthy summary of existing Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents on determining real standing from hypothetical injuries, the court noted, “The Court cannot conclude on this record that Plaintiffs have a concrete plan to violate the challenged provisions or that their alleged harm is actual or imminent.”
The court then summarized its decision for the state and dismissing the case:
“In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence about whether, how, and when they would be able to sell their wines to retailers were the Court to grant the requested relief. Plaintiffs have failed to establish Article III standing, and summary judgment is granted for Defendants on these limited grounds. Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish an injury in fact, the Court grants summary judgment for Defendants.”
Leave a Reply