2the injunction. First, however, a preliminary word about standing.
In my prior memorandum, I stated that defendants had “waived” their standingargument because they failed to develop the argument in their memorandum in supportof their motion to dismiss. Docket # 66 at 10 n.4. Defendants claim this was error. It istrue, of course, that standing implicates subject matter jurisdiction and may not bewaived. United States v. AVX Corp., 962 F.2d 108, 116 n.7 (1st Cir. 1992). Here,though, defendants raised their standing challenge in a single perfunctory paragraphon the last page of their memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss, Docket # 45at 20, but, rather perplexingly, developed the argument in an altogether separatedocument filed two weeks later: their memorandum in opposition to plaintiff’s motion fora preliminary injunction. Docket # 56 at 16-20. In so doing, defendants did not complywith our Local Rules. See U.S. Dist. Ct. Rules D. Mass, Local Rule 7(b)(1) (“A partyfiling a motion shall at the same time file a memorandum of reasons, including citationof supporting authorities, why the motion should be granted.”). The First Circuit recently reiterated that “[w]hen an issue implicates subject-matter jurisdiction, a federal court is obliged to resolve that issue even if the partieshave neither briefed nor argued it.” Merrimon v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 13-2128, 13-2168, slip op. at *2 (1st Cir. July 2, 2014). It is debatablewhether this precept applies issues which
briefed, but are briefed improperly. Assuming,
, that it does, and appreciating my “unflagging obligation to notice jurisdictional defects and to pursue them on [my] own initiative,” Espinal-Dominguez v.
Case 1:14-cv-11689-RWZ Document 73 Filed 08/28/14 Page 2 of 6