Appellant Janice McCarty, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her complaint against various financial institutions. Her complaint sought, among other remedies, damages and a declaratory judgment invalidating an assignment that transferred ownérshíp of her residential mortgage loan to defendant Bank of New York Mellon as trustee for a securitized trust (the “Trust”). The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss McCarty’s amended complaint, reasoning primarily that McCarty lacked standing to challenge the assignment. 1 We *7 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s determination that a plaintiff lacked standing to sue. See Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79, 84-85 (2d Cir. 2014). “The question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues[,]” and it implicates both constitutional and prudential limits on the court’s jurisdiction. Id. at 84 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Here, McCarty lacked both constitutional and prudential standing to challenge either the validity of the assignment of her mortgage loan or the assignment’s compliance with laws, regulations, and the Trust’s prospectus.

To have standing under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have suffered “an injury in fact ... which is (a) concrete and particularized, ... and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 85 (citation omitted). Upon review, we agree with the district court that McCarty alleged only injuries that are “highly implausible” and “entirely hypothetical,” id. and therefore fail to meet the constitutional standing requirements. For example, McCarty’s claim that the improper transfer of her debt prevented her from “explor[ing] options with the time debt owner,” McCarty Br. at 4, relies on too speculative an injury to serve as a basis for Article III standing. Consequently, we find that McCarty lacked constitutional standing to bring a challenge to Bank of New York Mellon’s ownership of her debt based on the alleged invalidity of the assignment.

Moreover, even if McCarty had constitutional standing to challenge the validity of the assignment, she would have lacked prudential standing. The “prudential standing rule ... normally bars litigants from asserting the rights or legal interests of others in order to obtain relief from injury to themselves.” Rajamin, 757 F.3d at 86 (citation omitted). To satisfy the prudential standing requirement, “the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” Id. (citation omitted). McCarty lacks prudential standing to assert her claims against defendants because her theories are largely premised on injuries to third parties, such as intended beneficiaries of the Trust.

McCarty also challenges the district court’s denial, with respect to the majority of her claims, of leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. We review such a denial for abuse of discretion. See In re Lehman Bros. Mortgage-Backed Sec. Litig., 650 F.3d 167, 188 (2d Cir. 2011). Here, in light of the issues discussed above, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that repleading would have been futile. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). On appeal, McCarty adduces no arguments to the contrary.

We have considered McCarty’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.