The judge only said the plaintiffs have no standing to file a lawsuit.
He never made any ruling on the content of the lawsuit.
Some of the most famous lawsuits in our country have come from lawyers extensively searching for the "right" plaintiff.
I hope USGBC takes this as a warning rather than vindication. Time to tie all versions of LEED to actual energy savings.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11475 thumbs up
August 18, 2011 - 1:25 pm
Bill, that's correct. The judge basically said to Gifford that on your best day, if everything you're saying about false advertising is true, you still can't show that you were harmed or have standing to bring this suit. So because of the legal procedures involved, the actual issue of the alleged false claim was not considered by the court.If you look at the Building Performance Partnership, the MPRs on energy reporting, and where LEED 2012 is going on commissioning, monitoring, and performance reporting, it seems as though LEED is going in this direction, and has been for a while.
Eric Johnson
271 thumbs up
August 18, 2011 - 1:35 pm
I would refer you to "entirely too vague and speculative". "In a last-ditch effort to save their claims, Plaintiffs assert, for the first time in their Opposition brief, damage to the reputation of “green” building sciences. Plaintiffs claim that consumers who learn that Defendant’s claim is false will discount all claims of energy saving through design and construction. Even if this allegation were contained in the FAC, it is entirely too vague and speculative to serve as a basis for standing."