Whether the Eleventh Circuit's sua sponte dismissal of the case on standing grounds without providing the plaintiff an opportunity for discovery and evidence violates due-process

QUESTION PRESENTED In Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. 254 (2015), this Court held that when a plaintiff receives neither proper notice that its standing is being questioned nor an opportunity to produce the requisite evidence, that sua sponte dismissal on Article III standing grounds violates “elementary principles of procedural fairness.” All circuits, save the Eleventh Circuit in this and several other cases, adhere to the underlying idea that plaintiffs should have an opportunity for discovery and provide evidence if summary judgment is sought on issues of standing. Here, the Eleventh Circuit sua sponte raised the issue of injury-in-fact to ascertain Petitioner’s standing for the first time after briefing was completed on an appeal of a partial summary judgment motion directed at the statute of limitations and for which discovery had been limited solely to the limitations issue, thereby denying Petitioner an opportunity to obtain evidence pertinent to the Eleventh Circuit’s sua sponte inquiry. This Petition presents the following issue: Whether, by raising standing sua sponte at oral argument in an appeal concerning a partial summaryjudgment decision focused solely on the statute of limitations and where discovery was limited to that purpose, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision dismissing this case, conflicts with this Court’s binding precedent in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and violates due-process in conflict with decisions of this Court and sister circuits.