Below is an excerpt of a brief I filed in the Sixth Circuit in 2015 explaining the relationship between Article III Standing and the defense under Civil Rule 17 that a party is not the real party in interest.  In particular, it deals with the allegation that the injured plaintiff had sold its right to sue.  For further information, you can access the reply brief and supplemental brief I filed in this case, and the audio of my oral argument.

Our client (a paving company) received a $15.6 million jury verdict in its favor, but the trial judge concluded that our client lacked Article III Standing, which eliminated the verdict entirely.  In a unanimous opinion, the Sixth Circuit reversed, reinstating the verdict and awarding interest.  The case ultimately settled for $24 million.  The excerpts regarding the interplay of Article III Standing and Rule 17 are below.  The case is Cranpark, Inc. v. Rogers Group, Inc., Nos. 14-3753/14-3832.  Trial counsel who obtained the $15.6 million verdict were Michael Pasternak and Jonathan Yarger.