Tamboura v. Singer

Background

The order addressed two related civil actions arising from the college-admissions bribery scheme involving William “Rick” Singer. The plaintiffs alleged that parents paid Singer, his business, or his charity, and that Singer created false athletic profiles and bribed university employees to place applicants into athletic admissions spots. The plaintiffs alleged that they were harmed because unqualified applicants were admitted, they paid application fees without knowing about the scheme, and they did not receive the fair and objective admissions process they expected.

The plaintiffs in both actions asserted claims against Singer, entities associated with him, and several universities or university-related defendants. Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The court ordered supplemental briefing on standing and stated that it would not directly rule on the other dismissal arguments because it concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Standing analysis

Article III standing requires a plaintiff to allege an injury that is concrete and particularized, actual or imminent, fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. If a plaintiff lacks standing, the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and must dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses jurisdictional defects.

The plaintiffs argued that they suffered economic harm because they paid application fees for a fair admissions process and ideological harm because they applied to universities whose process had allegedly been corrupted. They also argued that they would not have applied had they known about the fraud.

The court held that these allegations did not establish a particularized injury. According to the complaints, Singer’s scheme affected athletic admissions spots. The court emphasized that no plaintiff alleged applying for, being considered for, or being denied an athletic spot. The plaintiffs instead competed for general admissions spots, which the court found were separate from the athletic spots targeted by the scheme. The court therefore found no alleged connection between the bribery scheme and the plaintiffs’ admissions reviews.

The court also rejected the argument that paying an application fee or applying to a university affected by fraud was enough to establish standing. It characterized that theory as a generalized grievance based on the wrongfulness of the scheme rather than a concrete, personal injury. The court likewise found that the plaintiffs had not pleaded facts showing that the general admissions process was unfair for another reason.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court considered whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaints. Plaintiffs’ counsel said at oral argument that an amendment would add facts supporting the theory that the plaintiffs would not have paid application fees had they known about the bribery. The court found that this would not cure the standing defect because the plaintiffs still would need to show a connection between the scheme and their own admissions reviews. The court also stated that the plaintiffs could not cure the jurisdictional defect by adding different plaintiffs who might have standing.

The court concluded that amendment would be futile. It granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds without leave to amend and dismissed the amended complaints. The court expressly stated that the order should not be understood as approving or condoning Singer’s alleged manipulation of the admissions process. Judge Davila did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.