SPACE EXPLORATION TECH. v. BOEING CO

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 06-55907.

Attorney(S)

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 Tolles Olson, LLP, Robert P. Mallory, Esq., McDermott Will Emery, Los Angeles, CA, Jerome C. Roth, Esq., Munger Tolles Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA, David Marx, Jr., Esq., McDermott Will Emery LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Judges

Alex Kozinski
Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOEING COMPANY; Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

MEMORANDUM

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

Space 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.

SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOEING COMPANY; Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Comments