Originally Posted by
UrbaneGent
In argument 12(b)1, this is saying Lagen hasn't flown since the merger? In anticipation of the suit, what about if he didn't want to fly?
12(b)1 is a citation to the federal rules of civil procedure.
In order for any action to go forward a plaintiff has to be able to plead an injury-in-fact. Here it would be the lagen has not pleaded that he has either traveled this year or plans to travel this year.
This standing argument is more of a face slap to P's lawyers for forgetting to plead standing. In short P's attorneys make a rookie mistake.
uploaded documents here
https://docs.google.com/#folders/0B0...Wo0bU9SSjM1Umc