Lambert et al v. Democratic Party of Virginia et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 8/11/2015. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

DAVID LAMBERT,

et al..

Plaintiffs,
V.

Civil Action No.

3:15CV61

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF VIRGINIA,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This

DISMISS

matter

DISMISS

the

before

PLAINTIFFS'

DEFENDANTS'

TO

is

CONSENT

AMENDED
MOTION

PLAINTIFFS'

reasons

set

the

on

COMPLAINT

TO

SET

AMENDED

forth

Court

below,

DEFENDANTS'

(Docket

HEARING

COMPLAINT

the

ON

No.

26)

DEFENDANTS'

(Docket

motion

MOTION

to

No.

and

MOTION

36) .

dismiss

TO

For

will

be

granted and the motion to set hearing will be denied.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On

Linda

January

Hill

Democratic
74th

Party

House

1.)

2015,

David

(''Plaintiffs")

"Nominating
No.

30,

On

of

Virginia

District

filed
(the

this

20,

the

for

failure

to

state

a

claim

under

R.

Fed.

Party")

filed

P.

Civ.

and

a

the
(the

(Docket
motion

12(b)(1)
P.

the

and

Committee

Civ.
R.

Sr.,

against

"Defendants").

Defendants

dismiss for lack of standing under Fed.

Hill

action

Nominating

(collectively,
2015,

Gary

''Democratic

Democratic

Committee")
March

Lambert,

to

and

12(b) (6),

(Docket No.
Nos.

22,

3),

which this Court heard on May 1,

{Docket

24).

At the hearing,

the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file an

Amended Complaint.

May

2015,

21,

(Docket No.

2015.

(Docket

21.)

No.

The

23.)

Plaintiffs did so on

The

Amended

Complaint

challenges the way in which the Defendants selected a nominee to
represent

the

Democratic

Party

in

a

special

election

fill a vacancy in the Virginia House of Delegates'
(the

''74th

District") .

Am.

Compl.

f

5.

moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

The

held

to

74th District

Defendants

then

(Docket No. 26.)

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

On November 5,

the

delegate

House

of

Delegate

the

Joseph D.

representing

Delegates.

House

of

the

74th

Compl.

Am.

Morrissey,

involving a minor,
of

2013,

SI

having

been

submitted a
Delegates

candidate.
his

that

On or

resignation,

Nominating

he

would
about

at

the

the

Committee,

seek

the

District
20.

On

in

the

December

convicted

of

Virginia
18,

2014,

misconduct

resignation letter to the Clerk

members of the House of Delegates.
announced

Morrissey was elected to be

urging

Id.

of

the

SI 23.

election

as

leaders

and

Morrissey then
an

Independent

same day that Morrissey announced

Democratic
selected

Party,
a

operating

method

for

through
nominating

the
a

Democratic candidate to run for the vacant seat.

Id.

SI 35.

The

method

governing

the

of

nomination,

along

with

the

rules

selection process,

was

contained in a

made public on December 19,

The

Defendants

primary,"

in

which

standing of any of

2014.

settled on

voters
the

Id.

a

who

local

''Call to
SI 36-38.

process

were

Caucus" document

known

already

as

a

''firehouse

members

Democratic committees

in

good

in the

74th

District would convene to choose the party candidate.
39-42.

Id. at ff

The Call to Caucus also required committee members who

wished to vote to sign a written declaration affirming that they
were

"registered

to

vote

in

the

74th

House

District,"

''intend to support any candidate who is opposed to a
nominee in the

74th House

did not

Democratic

District Special Election," and have

not "participated in and will not participate in the nominating
process

of any other party for

the

74th House

District Special

Election."^

The "firehouse primary" was held on December 22.
63.

Kevin

Sullivan was

nominated

as

the

Democratic

Compl.

candidate,

but was defeated in the general election by Morrissey,
as

an Independent

^

who ran

candidate against Sullivan and the Republican

nominee. Matt Walton.^

1 The Plaintiffs have not disputed that the contents of the
public Call to Caucus document relied upon by the Defendants
reflect
the
actual
requirements
of
participating
in
the
firehouse primary.
See Defs.' Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss
Pis.' Am. Compl. at 3 n.3.
2
The
Court
takes
judicial
notice
of
affiliations and the general election results.

the
candidates'
See Va. Dept. of

Defendants

now

move

the

Court

once

again

to

dismiss

the

Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

12(b) (1)

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

12(b)(6).

also filed a
dismiss.

to

and for failure to state a

(Docket No.

26.)

consent motion to set a

(Docket No.

demonstrate

Defendants'

36.)

that

motion

they
to

Because

claim under

The Defendants have

hearing on the motion to
the

Plaintiffs have

have

standing,

dismiss

under

the

Court

Rule

failed

will

grant

12(b)(1).

The

Defendants' motion to set a hearing will be denied.

DISCUSSION

I.

Applicable Legal Standard

Article

III

of

the

Constitution

requires

that

courts only adjudicate "cases" and ''controversies."
as

a

case

or

traditionally
process."

U.S.

83,

controversy,

amenable

Steel

102

Co.

to,

v.

(1998).

defining

characteristic

amenable

to

matter

and

Citizens

A

judicial

a

resolved
for

a

plaintiff's

of

cases

must

by,

Better

To qualify

''of

the

the

judicial

to

sue"

controversies

The

sort

Environment^

"standing

and

resolution.

be

federal

standing

523

is

that

a

are

requirement

"tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court
will be resolved,

not

society,

a

Elections

but

in

2015

in the rarefied atmosphere of a

concrete

Election

factual

context

Results,

debating

conducive

to

available

http://elections.Virginia.gov/index.php/resultsreports/electionresults/2015-election-results/01132015Results.html.

a

realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action."
Friends of the Earth,

F.3d 149, 153-54
College v.

(4th Cir. 2000)

(quoting Valley Forge Christian

Americans United for Separation of Church and State,

Inc.^ 454 U.S.

To

Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp.^ 204

464,

satisfy

standing,"

472

the

Lujan

v.

(1982)).

"irreducible

Defenders

of

constitutional

Wildlife^

504

minimum

U.S.

of

555,

560

(1992), a plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact that is
both

"fairly

conduct
Gaston
U.S.

and

traceable
likely

Copper^
737,

204

751

elements:

and

three

prongs

proof

often

be

F.Sd

the

at

injury;
(3)

of

standing

overlaps.

F.3d at 154

a

relief."

formulation

contains

468

three

called

"While each of the

analyzed
these

Wright^

sometimes

See id.

should be

v.

distinctly,

requirements

to ensure that the

judiciary,

their

share

a

and not

is the appropriate forum in which

complaint."

See

Gaston

Copper^

204

(citing Allen, 468 U.S. at 752).
injury-in-fact element,

show "an invasion of a
and

conjectural

unlawful

requested

the

traceability,

Moreover,

plaintiff's

To satisfy the

concrete

by

allegedly

(quoting Allen

redressability.

another branch of government,
address

154
This

(2)

common purpose — namely,

to

defendant's

redressed

(1984)).

(1)

causation;

to

to

the

Plaintiffs must

legally protected interest which is

particularized,

or hypothetical."

and

(b)

actual

or

imminent,

Defenders of Wildlife,

504

(a)
not

U.S.

at

560

(internal

requirement

to

injuries.

jurisdiction

Copper^

and quotation marks

designed

is

attenuated

ingenious

citations

cannot

204

F.3d

See

lie

academic

if

the

exercise
at

156

out

id.

claims

of

Accordingly,

alleged

in

the

{quoting

Challenging Regulatory Agency
688

filter

omitted).

injury

highly

''[f]ederal

is

merely

conceivable.'"

United

Procedures

States

(SCRAP)^

This

v.
412

^an

Gaston
Students
U.S.

669,

(1973)).

II.

Analysis

The

gravamen

of

Plaintiffs'

Amended

Complaint

is

that

Plaintiffs were not permitted to vote in the unassembled caucus

because

the

rules

governing

public on December 19,
in

good

standing

committees

as

not

the

given

process

of

of

2014,

one

December

by

the

unassembled

caucus

were

made

but required voters to be members

of

the

18,

opportunity

employed

the

three

2014.

to

local

As

such.

participate

Democratic

Party

in
for

Democratic
Plaintiffs

Party
were

the

nomination

this

particular

the

challenged

special election.

As

Defendants

qualification

was

point

not

the

out,

only

however,

qualification

that

participating in the nominating process needed to meet.
[T]he rules governing the unassembled caucus
also
required
all
participants
in
the
unassembled
caucus
to
sign
a
written
declaration affirming that they were not a

those

member of any political party other than the
Democratic Party; that they did not intend
to support any candidate who was opposed to
a
Democratic
nominee
in
the
special
election; and that they had not participated

in
and
would
not
participate
in
the
nominating process for any other political
party for the special election.
(Docket

No.

alleged

in

able

sign the

to

''have

not

26

at

11-12.)

their Amended

Because

Complaint

declaration,

carried

the

the

burden

the

that

Plaintiffs

they

Defendants

of

showing

not

willing

were

have

and

contend that

that

their

they

purported

injury — the inability to vote — was due to the rules governing
the unassembled caucus and not Plaintiffs'
other requirements to vote."
The

are

Id. at 13.

correct.

In

challenged qualification,

by the

Defendants

inability to meet the

the

order

to

have

Plaintiffs

been

must

harmed

have

been

otherwise qualified voters who knew of the nomination process at

the time, wanted to participate at the time,

and did not attempt

to participate only because they knew doing so would be futile
based
{or

on

the

cannot)

injury

is

challenged
allege

merely

conceivable.'"
412 U.S.

In

this

^an

qualification.
factual

posture,

ingenious

Gaston Copper^

204

If

Plaintiffs

fail

then

alleged

academic
F.3d at

''the

exercise
156

in

to

the

(quoting SCRAP^

at 688).

their

participate,"

briefing.

(Docket No.

Plaintiffs

34

state

at 12),

that

they

"wanted

to

and they allege that they

would be considered Democrats according to the Democratic Party

of Virginia's Party Plan,
enough.

that

As

the

Defendants point out,

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs'

Am. Compl.

logic,

would

have

former

10-13,

but that is not

there were other declarations

been

required

Democratic

to

Delegate

make.

^MB]y

Morrissey

would

have met the requirements to vote at the time of the unassembled
caucus

even

though

he

actually

ran

against

Democratic nominee in the special election."

and

defeated

{Docket No.

the

35 at

4.)

Plaintiffs

opportunity to
any

such

also protest

get

affirmation

right to vote,"
already

to

raised

Complaint.

they

^'were

the point where
since

they

(Docket No.
during

There,

that

the

afforded an

they would have

were

denied

34 at 12.)
Court's

never

the

to

sign

prerequisite

But this argument was

hearing

on

the

original

Plaintiffs made the following argument:

If you preclude me from being eligible to be
in the pool of voters, then what oath or
affirmation should I be required to make?
I
can't
vote
anyway.
You barred me
from
voting.
I don't have to allege that I'm
allowed to vote and I
qualify under the
requirements of the Democratic Party, that
I'm going to vote democratic, I'm not going
to support somebody else in another party,
I'm going to be loyal to the party.
If you
told me already by the rules you've adopted
that I can't vote, then asking me to submit
to something that is irrelevant[.]

May

7,

2015

Plaintiffs
submitted

are
a

Hr'g

not

written

Tr.

being

27:10-28:1

asked

declaration
8

to
at

(Plaintiffs).

But

show

actually

the

that

time

of

they
the

the

firehouse

primary or actually attempted to vote knowing that they would be
turned
they

away.

would

Instead,
have

they are

been

willing

being
and

required to

able

to

allege

sign

the

that

written

declaration at the time of the firehouse primary and would have
attempted

to

vote

had

the

challenged

qualification

not

been

adopted.

For example,

to

dismiss

the Court asked in the hearing on the motion

the

original

Complaint

whether

Pennsylvania or Florida could bring this claim.

a

resident

Id.

of

at 28:2-19.

The point of this question was not that the Plaintiffs needed to

allege that they are from Virginia -

they have and the Court has

no reason to doubt that they are -

but rather that they needed

to

allege

that

they

otherwise

satisfied

all

the

other

qualifications of voting in the firehouse primary save for the
one

rule

needed

to

precluding

their

be

of

members

involvement:

their

local

that

the

Democratic

Plaintiffs

committees

one

day before the date the rules were put into effect.
Because the

attempted
allege
all

to

No.

and
facts

were
to

qualifications

attributable

Lodge

vote

sufficient

other

Plaintiffs have not alleged that they actually

to

107

v.

the

turned

show that
and

that

challenged

Irvis,

away,

407

they

they would have

their

failure

qualification.

U.S.

must

163,

166-67

to

at

satisfied
vote

Compare

(1972)

least

was

Moose

(holding

plaintiff did not have standing to challenge Lodge's membership

policy where he never sought to become a member)
Mauclet,

432 U.S.

1,

need to apply for

to

establish

qualified for,

challenged
merely

a

a

6,

n.7

(1977)

loan that

concrete

and entitled to,

rule) .

Without

conjectural

or

{noting that a party did not

would have been

dispute

with Nyquist v.

where

the

refused in order

party was

otherwise

financial assistance but for the

such

allegations,

hypothetical

rather

the

than

^'injury"
concrete

is
and

actual.

In

short,

academic

the

exercise

Plaintiffs

have

Amended

that
not

Complaint

posits

pleaded

no
an

merely

injury.
actual

engages

in

Accordingly,

case

or

an

the

controversy,

something that they must do before this Court's authority can be
constitutionally invoked.

CONCLUSION

For

the

PLAINTIFFS'

foregoing

reasons,

AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS'

(Docket No.

MOTION

26)

TO

DISMISS

will be granted.

Having been twice afforded the opportunity to satisfy the case
or

controversy requirement

twice

failed

another

Thus,

to

do

opportunity

so,

to

for

the

bring

federal
Plaintiffs

their

jurisdiction and having
will

claim

in

not

be

federal

afforded

court.

the action will be dismissed with prejudice to any further

proceeding in the federal

courts.

The action will be dismissed

without prejudice to any claim that the Plaintiffs may have in
the courts of Virginia.

Because the facts and legal contentions
10

are

adequately presented

in the materials

before

the

oral argument would not aid the decisional process,
CONSENT

MOTION

TO

SET

HEARING

PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT
It

is

ON

DEFENDANTS'

(Docket No.

36)

MOTION

Court

DEFENDANTS'
TO

DISMISS

will be denied.

so ORDERED.

/s/

ML

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia
Date: August

2015

11

and