Young America v. Affiliated Computer Services, No. 04-3674.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtRiley
Citation424 F.3d 840
Docket NumberNo. 04-3674.
Decision Date29 September 2005
PartiesYOUNG AMERICA CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation, Appellant, v. AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES (ACS), INC., a Nevada Corporation, in its capacity as agent for the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (the "States"); David Epstein, in his capacity as agent for the States, Appellees.
424 F.3d 840
YOUNG AMERICA CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation, Appellant,
v.
AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES (ACS), INC., a Nevada Corporation, in its capacity as agent for the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (the "States"); David Epstein, in his capacity as agent for the States, Appellees.
No. 04-3674.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2005.
Filed: September 29, 2005.

Page 841

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 842

Patrick J. McLaughlin, argued, Minneapolis, MN (Todd C. Pearson, on the brief), for appellant.

Aaron D. Van Oort, argued, Minneapolis, MN (Jerry W. Snider, on the brief), for appellee.

Before RILEY, BRIGHT, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

RILEY, Circuit Judge.


Young America Corporation (Young America) brought this action against Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (ACS) and David Epstein (Epstein), an individual affiliated with ACS, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent ACS from auditing Young America's business records. The district court1 dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Young America appeals, and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Young America is engaged in the rebate "fulfillment" business. Young America processes rebates offered by sellers of consumer goods and mails rebate checks to qualifying consumers. When consumers fail to cash the rebate checks, an accumulation of unclaimed property results.

Forty-one states have authorized ACS to audit Young America's records. The purpose of the audit is to determine whether Young America is complying with the states' unclaimed property laws and whether Young America is holding unclaimed property over which the states claim rights.2

Each of the forty-one states sent Young America a letter advising each state had authorized ACS to perform an audit. Six of these states also advised Young America that state law provides for assessments, including interest, penalties, fines, and examination costs, for failing to perform certain duties under the statute, or for failing to report or deliver property within the prescribed time.

Young America refused to submit to an audit and filed this action against ACS and Epstein, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In its second amended complaint (complaint), Young America alleges the proposed audit violates the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count I); the audit is an unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (Count II); and Young America is not a "holder" of unclaimed property, and therefore is not subject to an audit (Count III).

ACS and Epstein moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the district court lacked (1) subject matter jurisdiction because Young America failed to allege standing sufficiently, and (2) personal jurisdiction over Epstein.3 The district court referred the motion to dismiss to the magistrate judge,4 who recommended granting the motion.

Page 843

Overruling Young America's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted ACS's motion to dismiss. Because the district court dismissed Young America's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it did not address the issue of personal jurisdiction over Epstein. The district court also denied Young America's request for leave to file a third amended complaint, in which Young America would have included allegations the audit demands caused injury to Young America by casting a "pall" on its business. Young America appeals the dismissal of its case, contending it sufficiently alleged standing.

II. DISCUSSION

"[I]f a plaintiff lacks standing, the district court has no subject matter jurisdiction." Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797, 801 (8th Cir.2002). To show standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) the likelihood that a favorable decision by the court will redress the alleged injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). "The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements." Id. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. This court reviews de novo a district...

To continue reading

Request your trial
106 practice notes
  • Gerlich v. Leath, No. 16-1518
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 13, 2017
    ...that a favorable decision by the court will redress the alleged injury." Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Computer Servs. (ACS), Inc. , 424 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving these elements. See id. Defendants argue that plaintiffs lack an injury in fact becau......
  • Guggenberger v. Minnesota, Civil No. 15-3439 (DWF/BRT)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • July 28, 2016
    ...court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and must dismiss the case. Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Comp. Servs., Inc., 424 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir. 2005). Article III of the Constitution limits the power of the federal courts to deciding only actual "cases" and "controversies.......
  • Wilwal v. Nielsen, Civil No. 17-2835 (DWF/DTS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • September 27, 2018
    ...the relief requested would have any effect to redress the harm to the plaintiff." Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Comput. Servs., Inc. , 424 F.3d 840, 845 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hall v. LHACO, Inc. , 140 F.3d 1190, 1196 (8th Cir. 1998) ). Plaintiffs' allegations, taken as true at this stage......
  • Guggenberger v. Minnesota, Civil No. 15-3439 (DWF/BRT)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • July 28, 2016
    ...court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and must dismiss the case. Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Comp. Servs., Inc. , 424 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir.2005). Article III of the Constitution limits the power of the federal courts to deciding only actual "cases" and "controversies.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
106 cases
  • Gerlich v. Leath, No. 16-1518
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 13, 2017
    ...that a favorable decision by the court will redress the alleged injury." Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Computer Servs. (ACS), Inc. , 424 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving these elements. See id. Defendants argue that plaintiffs lack an injury in fact ......
  • Guggenberger v. Minnesota, Civil No. 15-3439 (DWF/BRT)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • July 28, 2016
    ...court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and must dismiss the case. Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Comp. Servs., Inc., 424 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir. 2005). Article III of the Constitution limits the power of the federal courts to deciding only actual "cases" and "......
  • Wilwal v. Nielsen, Civil No. 17-2835 (DWF/DTS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • September 27, 2018
    ...relief requested would have any effect to redress the harm to the plaintiff." Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Comput. Servs., Inc. , 424 F.3d 840, 845 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hall v. LHACO, Inc. , 140 F.3d 1190, 1196 (8th Cir. 1998) ). Plaintiffs' allegations, taken as true at this stag......
  • Guggenberger v. Minnesota, Civil No. 15-3439 (DWF/BRT)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • July 28, 2016
    ...court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and must dismiss the case. Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Comp. Servs., Inc. , 424 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir.2005). Article III of the Constitution limits the power of the federal courts to deciding only actual "cases" and "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT