The opinion of the court was delivered by: PARKER
BARRINGTON D. PARKER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Committee for a Free Namibia, is a voluntary group of Americans brought together by a common interest in helping to obtain the independence of Namibia, a territory in Africa. It seeks to keep Namibia free from external domination or control by defendant South West Africa People's Organization ("SWAPO"). The particular relief sought is an order enjoining SWAPO from acting as a foreign agent until such time as it complies with the requirements of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 ("FARA"), 22 U.S.C. §§ 611-21, which requires, inter alia, that agents representing foreign interests file registration statements and reports with the Justice Department. Plaintiff alleges that SWAPO has filed false statements and omitted material facts.
The defendant has moved to dismiss under Rule 12, Fed.R.Civ.P., on several grounds: lack of standing to sue; absence of express or implied statutory authority to maintain the action; absence of federal question or diversity jurisdiction; absence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant; absence of an actual controversy between the parties; and nonjusticiability since the case poses a political question. The defendant also seeks an award of costs and attorney's fees, arguing that plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P., by instituting a proceeding which has at its base a frivolous contention.
The Court concludes that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this proceeding and that its asserted cause of action is not authorized by statute. The case should therefore be dismissed.
The reasons for this determination are set out below.
A plaintiff lacks standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution if it fails to demonstrate actual injury to its interests which is traceable to the defendant and which may be redressed through the requested relief. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1975); Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 98 S. Ct. 2620, 57 L. Ed. 2d 595 (1978). For standing purposes, it is insufficient for a plaintiff to assert a generalized injury or grievance shared by the public generally. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 499, 95 S. Ct. at 2205; Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 1368, 31 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1972). Any such injury asserted by a plaintiff must constitute a specific personal injury directly to that party in order to confer standing.
Plaintiff claims both a general and "specific" interest: that it is "a voluntary group of Americans and others having a common interest in helping Namibia achieve independence free from external domination or control by [SWAPO]" (see Amended Complaint at para. 2, July 22, 1982), and that it has incurred "a direct injury to the committee member's [sic] right to know the information required to be disclosed by SWAPO" pursuant to FARA (Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss at 1, September 23, 1982). Neither of plaintiff's articulated interests distinguishes it from the general public.
It is not within the particular zone of interests protected by FARA. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S. Ct. 827, 25 L. Ed. 2d 184 (1970).
Even if plaintiff could satisfy the Article III requirements, it has failed to advance any more than a superficial showing that it is impliedly authorized by statute to maintain this action. Where, as plaintiff concedes in this case, a party cannot point to express statutory authority to pursue a claim, courts have recognized the existence of an implied private right of action in limited circumstances. J.I. Case v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S. Ct. 1555, 12 L. Ed. 2d 423 (1964).
The Supreme Court has noted four criteria to be considered in assessing whether an implied private right of action exists:
First, is the plaintiff "one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted," . . . that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? . . . Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? . . . And finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States . . .?
Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S. Ct. 2080, 2087, 45 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1975) (citations omitted and emphasis in original). Plaintiff does not explicitly address these criteria and it cannot do so successfully; rather, it contends only that Congress never intended to deny a private cause of action and that ...