AWS Can’t Show That BIPA Plaintiff Has Article III Standing: Remand Reply
As the removing party invoking federal jurisdiction, it’s the burden of defendant Amazon Web Services to establish subject-matter jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago over plaintiff Cynthia Redd’s Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act claims, said…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Redd’s reply Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-06779) in support of her motion to remand her case to Cook County Circuit Court where it originated before AWS removed (see 2303160070). Establishing subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court includes demonstrating Redd’s Article III standing, “a necessary component of federal jurisdiction,” it said. That means AWS must show Redd has Article III standing, but it “fails to carry that burden,” it said. AWS misrepresents Redd’s procedural 15(c) allegations and adds language that Redd didn’t plead, it said. Redd, for example, doesn’t allege AWS’ Section 15(c) violations resulted in her loss of the right to control her biometric data, it said. She rather alleges AWS’ actions in violating the BIPA “disregard her and other users’ rights to biometric privacy and control over the collection, use, and storage of sensitive biometric data,” it said. AWS also tries to take a second bite of its “motion to dismiss apple” by improperly rearguing the issue of personal jurisdiction, said Redd’s reply. AWS admits subject-matter jurisdiction “should be addressed first and foremost,” it said. Yet it nonetheless cites “irrelevant and inapplicable cases” to argue the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction in the present case is too complex and novel here that personal jurisdiction “should be decided first and in its favor,” it said. “That’s simply untrue.” Numerous courts within the Northern District of Illinois “addressed the same remand issue and have found remand appropriate,” it said.