U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. Boeing Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 9, 2008 · Fletcher, Kozinski, Scannlain

281 F. App'x 769

Counsel

David Boies, Esq., Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Armonk, NY, Steven C. Holtzman, Esq., Boise, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Benjamin Sharp, Perkins Coie, Scott McCaleb, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Raymond A. Jacobsen, Jr., Esq., McDermott Will & Emery, Washington, DC, Brad D. Brian, Esq., Daniel P. Collins, Esq., Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Esq., Munger Tolies & Olson, LLP, Robert P. Mallory, Esq., McDermott Will & Emery, Los Angeles, CA, Jerome C. Roth, Esq., Munger Tolies & Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA, David Marx, Jr., Esq., McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Chicago, IL, for DefendantsAppellees.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Tawfilis v. Allergan, Inc. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM *

*770Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) was not eligible to compete for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Buy 3 launch contracts for fiscal year 2006. See Space Exploration Techs. Corp. v. United States (“SpaceX”), 68 Fed.Cl. 1, 4, 6-7 (2005). SpaceX’s complaint does not allege that SpaceX was in fact improperly barred from competing for subsequent USAF contracts.

We affirm the district court’s judgment that SpaceX lacks Article III standing to bring its claims. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 563-64, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 504-05, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). The injury and causation as alleged in SpaceX’s complaint are too speculative to establish standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 & n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 2130.

We do not reach the issue of whether SpaceX would have Article III standing to bring a claim in the event that SpaceX was not “accorded every opportunity to compete for future contracts.” SpaceX, 68 Fed.Cl. at 5 n. 5 (emphasis added). The issue of future launch contracts was not before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and is not before us.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.