real-party-in-interest principle in Alabama

2004State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive , 740 So.2d 1025 , 1027-28 (Ala. 1999); accord, Sprague v. Sysco Corp. , 97 Wash.App. 169 , 175 , 982 P.2d 1202 , 1205 (1999), review denied , 140 Wash.2d 1004 , 999 P.2d 1262 (2000) (table).

2004State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive , 740 So.2d 1025 , 1027-28 (Ala. 1999); accord, Sprague v. Sysco Corp. , 97 Wash.App. 169 , 175 , 982 P.2d 1202 , 1205 (1999), review denied , 140 Wash.2d 1004 , 999 P.2d 1262 (2000) (table).

2023The real-party-in-interest analysis focuses on identifying " 'the person who possesses the right sought to be enforced.' " Dennis v. Magic City Dodge, Inc., 524 So. 2d 616, 618 (Ala. 1988) (quoting 6 Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R.

2002The real-party-in-interest principle identifies a person who has a "`significant interest *893 in the particular action.'" Dennis v. Magic City Dodge, Inc., 524 So.2d 616, 618 (Ala.1988)(quoting Charles Wright and Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1542 (1971)).

2004State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1027-28 (Ala.1999); accord, Sprague v. Sysco Corp., 97 Wash.App. 169, 175 , 982 P.2d 1202, 1205 (1999), review denied, 140 Wash.2d 1004 , 999 P.2d 1262 (2000) (table).

2004State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive , 740 So.2d 1025 , 1027-28 (Ala. 1999); accord, Sprague v. Sysco Corp. , 97 Wash.App. 169 , 175 , 982 P.2d 1202 , 1205 (1999), review denied , 140 Wash.2d 1004 , 999 P.2d 1262 (2000) (table).

2009While standing is a necessity for subject-matter jurisdiction and objections to standing are not waivable, "objections based upon an action's not being prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest can be waived." Ex parte Sterilite Corp. of Alabama , 837 So.2d 815 , 819 (Ala. 2002).

2009While standing is a necessity for subject-matter jurisdiction and objections to standing are not waivable, “objections based upon an action’s not being prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest can be waived.” Ex parte Sterilite Corp. of Alabama, 837 So.2d 815, 819 (Ala.2002).

2024In Ex parte Simpson, 36 So. 3d 15, 24 (Ala. 2009), this Court concluded that the petitioners' "argument [in that case had] confuse[d] the standing issue with the issue whether [the plaintiff wa]s the real party in interest." After discussing the distinction between the standing principle and the real-party-in-interest principle, the Ex parte Simpson Court stated: "Although this Court is duty-bound to notice and address the absence of standing and hence subject-matter jurisdiction ex mero motu, Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 4 So. 3d 460, 462 (Ala. 2008), it is not so bound when the issue is whether the

2024In Ex parte Simpson, 36 So. 3d 15, 24 (Ala. 2009), this Court concluded that the petitioners' "argument [in that case had] confuse[d] the standing issue with the issue whether [the plaintiff wa]s the real party in interest." After discussing the distinction between the standing principle and the real-party-in-interest principle, the Ex parte Simpson Court stated: "Although this Court is duty-bound to notice and address the absence of standing and hence subject-matter jurisdiction ex mero motu, Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 4 So. 3d 460, 462 (Ala. 2008), it is not so bound when the issue is whether the

2014Bd., 54 So. 3d 886, 893 (Ala. 2010). 14 1130342, 1130357 two-month period after the appellee had articulated a real- party-in-interest challenge, the appellants "did nothing" to remedy the issue by moving either to substitute or to join the identified real party in interest. 964 So. 2d at 1236 .

2014Bd., 54 So. 3d 886, 893 (Ala. 2010). 14 1130342, 1130357 two-month period after the appellee had articulated a real- party-in-interest challenge, the appellants "did nothing" to remedy the issue by moving either to substitute or to join the identified real party in interest. 964 So. 2d at 1236 .

2014Jan. 5, 2011) (not reported in F.Supp.2d). 3 In Lumpkin, the Court of Civil Appeals indicated that a summary judgment was due to be affirmed because, in the two-month period after the appellee had articulated a real-party-in-interest challenge, the appellants “did nothing” to remedy the issue by moving either to substitute or to join the identified real party in interest. 964 So.2d at 1236.

2002One has standing, however, "`if his stake in the resolution of that complaint assumes the proportions necessary to ensure that he will vigorously present his case.'" Smith v. Potts, 293 Ala. 419, 422 , 304 So.2d 578, 580 (1974)(quoting Harman v. City and County of San Francisco, 7 Cal.3d 150, 159 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 880, 886 , 496 P.2d 1248, 1254 (1972)).

2002One has standing, however, "`if his stake in the resolution of that complaint assumes the proportions necessary to ensure that he will vigorously present his case.'" Smith v. Potts, 293 Ala. 419, 422 , 304 So.2d 578, 580 (1974)(quoting Harman v. City and County of San Francisco, 7 Cal.3d 150, 159 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 880, 886 , 496 P.2d 1248, 1254 (1972)).

2002One has standing, however, "`if his stake in the resolution of that complaint assumes the proportions necessary to ensure that he will vigorously present his case.'" Smith v. Potts, 293 Ala. 419, 422 , 304 So.2d 578, 580 (1974)(quoting Harman v. City and County of San Francisco, 7 Cal.3d 150, 159 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 880, 886 , 496 P.2d 1248, 1254 (1972)).

2002One has standing, however, "`if his stake in the resolution of that complaint assumes the proportions necessary to ensure that he will vigorously present his case.'" Smith v. Potts, 293 Ala. 419, 422 , 304 So.2d 578, 580 (1974)(quoting Harman v. City and County of San Francisco, 7 Cal.3d 150, 159 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 880, 886 , 496 P.2d 1248, 1254 (1972)).

2002See also Battle v. Alpha Chem. & Paper Co., 770 So.2d 626, 634 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) ("While the real-party-in-interest principle directs attention to whether the plaintiff has a significant interest in the particular action he or she has instituted, standing requires that the plaintiff demonstrate an injury to a legally protected right.").