Schwimmer v. Kaladjian
Plaintiffs (the Schwimmers and their children) sued defendants (Kaladjian, Sabol, Little, Harris, Guilford), primarily challenging the allegedly unlawful removal of their son Yoel and non-consensual physical examinations of their children by the Child Welfare Administration (CWA). They also contested the defendants' patterns and policies regarding child removal. Defendant Kaladjian moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted Kaladjian's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief as they failed to demonstrate an actual case or controversy or an immediate threat of future injury, relying instead on speculation. Consequently, the court also dismissed, sua sponte, similar claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the other defendants.