Yesterday, Judge Sands dismissed Henry Gifford’s suit against the USGBC. A copy of the Order is available here. In a major win for the USGBC, Judge Sands dismissed Gifford, et al’s Federal claims with prejudice, which means they cannot be brought again, Because the Federal claims were dismissed,
On Friday, the USGBC responded to Henry Gifford’s amended complaint with a Motion To Dismiss for failure to state a legal claim (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)).
In essence, the USGBC’s response has two
Yesterday, I discussed the fact that Henry Gifford filed an Amended Complaint in his suit against the USGBC for fraudulently claiming that LEED buildings save energy. The post, as well as the Amended Complaint are available here. I also noted that Mr. Gifford and the other plaintiffs probably do not have standing to bring the suit because they were not harmed by the allegedly fraudulent advertising of the LEED
In October 2010, Henry Gifford filed a lawsuit against the United States Green Building Council alleging, essentially, that the USGBC had fraudulently represented the performance of LEED buildings, and doctored study results to support their claim that LEED buildings performed more efficiently than standard construction. Yesterday, Henry Gifford filed an amended
NOTE: The opinions expressed in this post are entirely those of the author, and do not represent the position of the USGBC or the Delaware Valley Green Building Council.
As almost anyone in the green community knows, last week LEED Critic Henry Gifford sued the USGBC for, essentially, a few different flavors of fraud. Mr. Gifford sued
You had to know this was coming. I even predicted a Lanham Act and Consumer Fraud Act claim would be part of a good green litigation.