IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA – MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 1:24-CV-24617-ALTONAGA
____________________________________________
THE HAITIAN DIASPORA POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEE (HDPAC), et al,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, et al,
Defendants.
____________________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(1)
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs The Haitian Diaspora Political Action Committee (HDPAC), The Haitian Diaspora Federation (HDF) and Project2Morrow (P2M) and individual plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, submit their Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 53). Defendants The American Red Cross, its executives, and Board of Directors seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that plaintiffs lack standing. This motion should be denied because Plaintiffs have sufficiently established standing through well-pleaded allegations and sworn declarations, demonstrating that:
1. The Named Donor Plaintiffs have standing – Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, the Donor Plaintiffs have provided sworn declarations and financial records confirming their donations, which directly refute the Red Cross’s claim that they never donated. Plaintiffs have further alleged, both in the Amended Complaint and in supporting
1
Declarations, that they relied on the Red Cross’s misrepresentations, suffered economic harm, and would not have donated had they known their contributions would be misused. 2. The Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs have standing – The Beneficiary Plaintiffs are not merely potential recipients of charitable aid, but the intended beneficiaries of USAID grants and nearly $500 million in donor contributions that were expressly designated for Haiti earthquake relief. These funds created contractual and trust-based obligations, which the Red Cross violated by diverting relief money to unrelated projects and internal expenses, directly harming the Beneficiary Plaintiffs.
3. The Organizational Plaintiffs, HDPAC, the Haitian Diaspora Federation and Project2Morrow, have standing – These organizations were established with the purpose of assisting Haitian earthquake victims and advocating for proper disaster relief allocation. HDPAC, HDF and P2M have both direct and associational standing, as their members were misled into donating, and the organizations suffered reputational and financial harm due to the Red Cross’s mismanagement. Furthermore, many of the claims asserted—including violations of the False Claims Act, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy—do not require individual member participation, meeting the standard for organizational standing.
Defendants’ motion misapplies legal precedent and raises factual disputes that cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated concrete and particularized injuries fairly traceable to the Red Cross’s misconduct and redressable by this Court, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied in its entirety, allowing this case to proceed to discovery.
2
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(b)(1) and Article III Standing
A motion to dismiss for lack of standing challenges a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Courts must accept plaintiffs’ allegations as true and construe them in a light most favorable to plaintiffs. Wilding v. DNC Services Corp., 941 F.3d 1116, 1125 (11th Cir. 2019). To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent (2) a causal connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct and (3) redressability, meaning the court can provide relief for the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
A factual attack on standing, as defendants have raised here, allows courts to consider evidence beyond the pleadings, including declarations and affidavits. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Caring Voice Coal., Inc., 722 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2024). The burden shifts to the Plaintiffs to prove jurisdiction, which they have done through multiple sworn affidavits and financial records. Conversely, a facial challenge, which Defendants have also raised, contests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s allegations of subject-matter jurisdiction. Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). In evaluating a facial challenge, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. As applied here, the allegations in the Amended Complaint, taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, sufficiently establish a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Named Donor Plaintiffs Have Standing
1. The Named Plaintiff Donors Have Standing Because Their Sworn Testimony and Financial Records Confirm Their Donations and Demonstrate Injury in Fact
3
Defendants argue that named plaintiffs lack standing because the Red Cross has no record of their donations and, as such, Plaintiffs have not suffered an injury in fact sufficient to establish standing. [ECF 53 at 6-7 and ECF 53-1 at ¶¶ 7-13]. However, Plaintiffs have submitted sworn declarations refuting this claim.1
As detailed in her sworn declaration, Kridikel R. Truthbey affirms that she personally donated a total of $16,000 to the Red Cross through online payments, text donations, and cashier’s checks on or about February 2013 and May 2014. See Exhibit A at ¶¶ 5-6 & 12. She further specifies that her first donation was $10,000 in 2013 through the Kinomoris Foundation, her nonprofit organization, followed by a second donation of $6,000 in 2014, also made through the Kinomoris Foundation. In addition, she made multiple other donations between 2016 and 2023, all intended exclusively for Haiti’s natural disaster victims. Id. Plaintiff Truthbey also asserts that she personally retained records, including receipts, bank statements, and transaction confirmations, which verify her contributions. She directly refutes the Red Cross’s claim that it has ‘no record’ of her donations, stating that this assertion is either inaccurate or indicative of recordkeeping failures. Id. at ¶ 11. Moreover, she confirms that she is prepared to provide documentary evidence substantiating her donations. Id.
Nathaniel Ballantyne, another named plaintiff and a spokesperson for the Haitian Diaspora Political Action Committee (HDPAC), made multiple donations to the American Red Cross for Haiti earthquake relief efforts between 2010 and 2023. See Exhibit B at ¶¶ 5-6 & 12. He personally donated over $280 through online payments, text donations and cash donations. Id. Plaintiff
1 Given the limited time available to prepare this response and obtain supporting declarations, Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to reach all named Plaintiffs. However, based on a good-faith belief, counsel proffers that those Plaintiffs who could not be contacted would have provided declarations similar to those attached, affirming their donations, reliance on the Red Cross’s misrepresentations, and the injuries they sustained.
4
Ballantyne retained receipts and transaction records verifying his donations, contradicting Defendants’ claim that no record exists. Id at ¶ 11.
Similarly, Darlene Pierre Licin contributed $200 to the Red Cross through online payments and text donations between January 2010 and December 2023. See Exhibit C at ¶¶ 5-6 & 12. Plaintiff Licin has records confirming her donations and stands ready to provide documentary evidence disproving Defendants’ assertion that no records exist. Id at ¶ 11
Linda Chery, a member of the Haitian Diaspora Federation and a named plaintiff, also made multiple contributions to the Red Cross for Haiti relief efforts. She personally donated approximately $150 via online payments and text donations between January 2010 and May 2023. See Exhibit D at ¶¶ 5-6. Her assertion contradicts Defendants’ claim that no donor plaintiffs made contributions, and she is prepared to provide evidence verifying her donations. Id at ¶ 11.
Additionally, Renee Ballantyne, another named plaintiff, and the president of the Haitian Diaspora Political Action Committee (HDPAC), made financial contributions to the Red Cross. See Exhibit E at ¶¶ 5-6 & 12. She recalls donating over $ 300 to the Red Cross on or about February 2020, in May 2010, and 2013 in response to urgent appeals and widespread media campaigns portraying the suffering of Haitian communities. Id. She also maintained records of her donations and is prepared to provide evidence of the same. Id at ¶ 11.
Each of these plaintiffs personally donated funds, relied on fraudulent misrepresentations, and suffered financial harm as a result. Their sworn declarations establish clear factual disputes that preclude dismissal at this stage of litigation. Defendants’ reliance on their own internal defective record keeping system to assert that no donations were made is factually inaccurate and legally insufficient to support their contention that the named donor Plaintiffs lack standing.
2. The Named Donor Plaintiffs Have Standing Because the Amended Complaint Contains Specific Allegations That Plaintiffs Donated Based on Defendants’ Representations
5
Defendants argue that the named donor plaintiffs lack standing based on the face of the complaint, contending that plaintiffs fail to allege any purported false statement made by a specific defendant or that any named plaintiff relied on such a statement in making donations before January 13, 2021. [ECF 53 at 7-10]. However, this argument is contradicted by the detailed allegations in the Amended Complaint, which explicitly set forth the false representations made by Defendants and the Plaintiffs’ reliance on them.
For instance, the Amended Complaint alleges that from January 2010 through June 2024, Defendants represented to potential donors that funds solicited would be used to assist the people of Haiti. [ECF 17 at ¶ 90]. These representations were made through various media, including television advertisements depicting the devastation in Haiti, designed to evoke sympathy and encourage donations. Id. The Defendants falsely promised that the Red Cross would utilize donated funds exclusively to assist the Haitian people. [Id at ¶ 93]. During this time, Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct by knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting that the donated funds would directly benefit the people of Haiti. [Id at ¶ 91]. Defendants knew these representations were false, as internal meetings held the day after the earthquake focused on leveraging the disaster to raise funds for the organization rather than using the donations as promised. [Id. at ¶ 92]. The Defendants diverted substantial amounts of the donations to cover the Red Cross’s financial deficits and fund unrelated projects, contrary to their explicit assurances. [Id at ¶¶ 96, 99]. Defendants further engaged in fraudulent concealment to mislead donors into continuing to contribute funds under false pretenses. [Id. ¶ 100].
As for reliance and injury in fact, the Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and other donors justifiably relied on these misrepresentations when making their donations, and that each named Plaintiff – including Nathaniel Ballantyne, Kridikel R. Truthbey, Darlene Pierre Licin,
6
Linda Chery, and Renee Ballantyne who each donated funds based on their understanding, created by the Red Cross’s statements, that their donations would be used exclusively to assist the Haiti victims of natural disasters. [Id. ¶¶ 38-45 & 97]. From 2010 through 2024, in reliance on the Defendants’ foregoing false statements, Plaintiffs and class members collectively donated over $500,000,000. [Id.]. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and class members suffered substantial harm. [Id. ¶¶ 101-102]. Defendants acted willfully, maliciously, and with callous disregard for the consequences of their fraudulent activities.
These allegations, when accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable, establish that Plaintiffs donated, based on Defendants’ explicit misrepresentations that their donations would be used exclusively to assist the Haiti victims of natural disasters, and that Plaintiffs suffered a concrete injury as a result as their reliance on the Defendants misrepresentations and use of the Haiti donations to cover the Red Cross’s financial deficits and fund unrelated projects. Thus, the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ specific misrepresentations when making their donations and suffered concrete harm as a result. Therefore, Plaintiffs have established standing under applicable legal standards, and this case should proceed to discovery.
3. Defendants’ Claim of Plaintiffs’ Lack of Standing Based on Alleged Absence of False Statements or Donor Reliance is a Factual Dispute Disguised as a Facial Challenge
As established in Section A.3, supra, Defendants’ contention that Plaintiffs fail to connect specific misrepresentations to their donations is contradicted by the detailed allegations in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs explicitly allege reliance on statements made by Red Cross officials and its fundraising materials, which assured donors that all contributions for Haiti relief would be used exclusively to assist the Haitian people. These allegations sufficiently establish standing
7
under applicable legal standards. At this stage, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, establish standing. Plaintiffs have met this burden by asserting that they donated in reliance on specific misrepresentations made by the Red Cross and its representatives, including CEO Gail J. McGovern, who stated that donated funds would be used exclusively to assist the Haitian people.
Defendants’ arguments—that no donations were made, that any donations were not given in reliance on misrepresentations, or that the funds were properly allocated—raise factual disputes rather than facial challenges, making them inappropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage. Because Defendants’ reliance argument is, in reality, a factual challenge disguised as a facial one, the Court may properly consider extrinsic evidence beyond the pleadings, including the declarations of the Named Donor Plaintiffs attached to this Response. The following plaintiffs have submitted sworn declarations establishing their reliance on the Red Cross’s assurances and confirming they would not have donated had they known the funds would not be used as represented:
Kridikel R. Truthbey’s donations in 2013 and 2014, and additional donations made between 2016 and 2023, were based on Red Cross solicitations that all funds collected would be used exclusively for relief efforts in Haiti. Exhibit A ¶¶ 5-12. She states that had she known of the misuse of funds, she would not have contributed. Id. at ¶¶ 13-16.
Nathaniel Ballantyne, donated between 2010 and 2023 based on Red Cross’ explicit and repeated representations that his funds would be used exclusively for Haitian earthquake relief. Exhibit B ¶¶ 5-12. He affirms that he would not have donated had he known the funds were not used as represented. Id. at ¶¶ 13-16.
Darlene Pierre Licin donated to the Red Cross through online payments and text donations in January 2010 and again in 2021 and 2024, based on solicitations that assured all funds
8
designated for Haiti relief would be used for that purpose. Exhibit C ¶¶ 5-12. She states she would not have contributed had she known otherwise. Id. at ¶¶ 13-16.
Linda Chery contributed to the Red Cross through online donations and text contributions between January 2010 and May 2023, based on explicit Red Cross representations that donations were solely for Haiti earthquake relief. Exhibit D ¶¶ 5-12. She states that she would not have donated had she known the funds were not used as represented. Id. at ¶¶ 13-16.
Renee Ballantyne, President of the Haitian Diaspora Political Action Committee, donated between 2010 and 2013, relying on the Red Cross’s public statements and media campaigns emphasizing that donations would be used exclusively for Haiti earthquake relief. Exhibit D ¶¶ 5- 12. She asserts that had she been aware of the misuse of funds, she would not have donated. Id. at ¶¶ 13-16.
Each of these declarations refutes Defendants’ claim that no named plaintiff has alleged reliance on specific false statements. Defendants’ attempt to dismiss the case by framing their argument as a facial challenge is misleading, as the issue of whether Plaintiffs were misled into donating is a factual dispute, not a legal insufficiency. As such, dismissal at this stage is inappropriate.
B. The Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs Have Standing to Sue the Red Cross for Misuse of Funds Intended for Haitian Earthquake Victims
Defendants argue that the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs lack standing because they were merely “possible beneficiaries” of charitable funds and therefore have no enforceable claim. [ECF 53 at 11-13]. In support, Defendants rely on Sabeta v. Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (S.D. Fla. 2005), which held that individuals who might benefit from a charitable trust cannot maintain a suit simply because they were intended beneficiaries. This reliance is misplaced, as the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs here are not merely potential recipients of discretionary charitable
9
aid but beneficiaries of funds expressly designated for Haitian earthquake relief under enforceable agreements and representations.
1. Distinguishing Sabeta
In Sabeta, the plaintiffs alleged that a hospital’s tax-exempt status created a general obligation to provide affordable care to the indigent, but the court ruled that such status did not create a legally enforceable contract or trust in favor of specific patients. Here, in contrast:
• The Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs were not merely individuals who might have benefited from charitable funds; they were the specific intended recipients of USAID grants and nearly $500 million in donations raised exclusively for Haitian earthquake victims.
• Unlike the broad, discretionary nature of the tax exemptions in Sabeta, supra, the Red Cross funds were subject to express or implied contractual obligations requiring their exclusive use for Haiti relief efforts.
• The Red Cross explicitly assured donors and USAID that these funds would be used exclusively for Haitian earthquake relief, creating a charitable trust enforceable in favor of the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs.
Thus, the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs were not merely hoping to receive aid—they were the direct beneficiaries of funds contractually and publicly designated for their assistance, but instead, these funds were diverted elsewhere, causing them a concrete and particularized injury.
2. The Express and Implied Contracts Creating a Charitable Trust The USAID grants and the donor contributions to the Red Cross for Haiti relief functionally created a charitable trust in which the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs had enforceable rights. Specifically:
• USAID granted millions of dollars to the Red Cross for specific purposes, including urban planning, infrastructure, and housing in Haiti. These funds were contractually restricted
10
for use exclusively to aid Haitian earthquake victims. See [ECF 17 at ¶¶ 58-65 & 104- 114]
• Nearly $500 million was raised from the public based on explicit representations by the Red Cross that these donations would be used exclusively for Haiti earthquake relief. See [Id at ¶¶ 89-103].
• The Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs suffered injury because these funds, instead of being used for them, were diverted to cover Red Cross internal shortfalls and unrelated projects. Under well-established trust law principles, a charitable trust arises when funds are solicited
and granted for a specific purpose, and those funds must be used accordingly. The Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs, as intended recipients of these funds, have standing to enforce this trust and seek relief for the Red Cross’s misuse of the funds.
3. Government and Congressional Investigations Confirm Red Cross Misuse of Funds
Further reinforcing Plaintiffs’ standing, investigations by Congress, the Department of Government Efficiency, and Senator Charles Grassley have revealed systemic misuse of Red Cross funds designated for Haiti. These findings include:
• The Red Cross squandered at least 25% of Haiti relief funds on internal expenses, per a 2016 Senate report led by Senator Grassley.2
2 See NPR, “Report: Red Cross Spent 25 Percent Of Haiti Donations On Internal Expenses”, June 16, 2016, available at https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances See also US Senate, “Investigation of the American Red Cross” Memorandum, issued by Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Member, Senate Finance Committee, 6/15/2016, available at
15%20Senator%20Grassley%20Red%20Cross%20Inquiry.pdf
11
• USAID funds granted to non-profits, including the Red Cross, for Haiti relief efforts were found to be misappropriated, according to Congressional investigation.3
• Despite receiving funds to construct hundreds or thousands of homes, the Red Cross built only six, and these were left unfinished.4
These findings directly contradict Defendants’ argument that none of the purported injuries are redressable to the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs. The very funds that were contractually designated for them were systematically misallocated, squandered, or diverted, resulting in direct harm.
4. Redressability of Plaintiffs’ Injuries
Defendants argue that the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs’ injuries are not redressable because they lack a direct claim to the funds. However, this argument fails for two reasons: First,, the Red Cross’s express commitments created an enforceable obligation to use the funds exclusively for Haitian earthquake victims. Redressability exists because a court order can require an accounting of funds, restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent further misuse. Second, the
3 See NY Post, “How USAID squandered billions in Haiti and around the globe”, February 22, 2025, available at https://nypost.com/2025/02/22/opinion/how-usaid-squandered-billions-in-haiti-and around-the-globe/ stating that:
“Since the 2010 earthquake in Haiti killed as many as 300,000 people, the US government has disbursed around $4.4 billion in foreign assistance to the small island nation … the Red Cross claimed they provided housing to over 130,000 people, but the organization only constructed six verifiable homes. The Red Cross has refused to make available a list of the specific activities they conducted in Haiti, only providing a breakdown of the funds into large and non-descript “sectors” on their website. One of these sectors, shelter, proved to be particularly misleading, having promised residents new homes, health centers, and sanitization systems in the Campeche neighborhood. But three years later, none of these promises were kept.”
4 See ProPublica, Sen. Grassley Demands Red Cross Disclose Haiti Spending — And Gives Them a Deadline, July 9, 2015, available at https://www.propublica.org/article/grassley-demands-red-cross disclose-haiti-spending-and-gives-them-deadline
12
False Claims Act (FCA) and common law fraud claims provide legal mechanisms to redress the harm. The Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs have standing to assert these claims because the Red Cross obtained funds based on fraudulent misrepresentations, leading to their deprivation of essential aid.
Unlike in Sabeta, where plaintiffs sought to enforce a general duty to provide charity, the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs here were the specific, intended recipients of donations and USAID funds expressly designated for their benefit. The Red Cross’s misuse of those funds directly harmed them, giving rise to a concrete and redressable injury. Given the contractual obligations, fraudulent misrepresentations, and Congressional findings confirming misuse of funds, the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs have standing, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
5. Resolution of the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs’ Standing Involves Factual Disputes That Cannot Be Resolved at This Stage
Defendants’ argument that the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs lack standing presents factual disputes that cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage. Whether the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs were merely potential beneficiaries or had enforceable rights to the funds designated for Haitian earthquake relief is a question of fact, not law, requiring further evidentiary development. Key factual disputes include:
• The Red Cross’s Representations and USAID Grants – Whether the explicit fundraising representations made by the Red Cross, along with the grants from USAID, created enforceable contracts under which the Red Cross was legally bound to use the funds exclusively for Haitian earthquake relief. If those contracts existed, whether they, in turn, created charitable trusts in which the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs had enforceable rights.
13
• Misallocation of Funds – Whether the funds raised and granted to the Red Cross, including USAID funds and donor contributions, were in fact misused for internal Red Cross expenses or diverted to unrelated projects instead of being used as contractually obligated for Haitian earthquake victims.
• Impact on Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs – Whether the Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs, as specific intended beneficiaries of the aid funds, suffered a concrete injury due to the Red Cross’s failure to use the funds as required by the contracts and charitable trusts.
• Congressional Findings and Government Reports – Whether investigative findings from Congress, the Senate, and watchdog organizations confirming that the Red Cross failed to provide the promised aid support Plaintiffs’ claims that the Red Cross’s actions resulted in harm to the intended beneficiaries.
Because these factual issues are disputed, they must be resolved through discovery and not on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. Courts have consistently held that standing challenges involving factual disputes should not be decided at the pleading stage but require further development of the record. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied, allowing the case to proceed to discovery and further factual determination.
C. Organizational Plaintiffs Have Standing
Defendants argue that HDPAC and Project2Morrow lack standing because the claims asserted, and the relief requested allegedly require the participation of individual members of the lawsuit. [ECF 53 at 14-15]. However, this argument misapplies the principles of organizational and associational standing and fails to account for the specific nature of the claims asserted and the purpose of these organizations, as detailed in the Amended Complaint.
14
1. HDPAC, the Haitian Diaspora Federation and Project2Morrow Have Standing Because Their Purpose Is to Aid Haitian Victims of Natural Disasters
As alleged in the Amended Complaint, HDPAC, The Haitian Diaspora Federation and Project2Morrow are not general advocacy organizations seeking to broadly represent Haitian interests. Rather, they were founded and operated with the specific purpose of assisting Haitian communities affected by natural disasters.
HDPAC (Haitian Diaspora Political Action Committee) is a political action and advocacy organization dedicated to helping Haitians affected by natural disasters and ensuring relief efforts are properly implemented. Its members include donors and individuals directly impacted by the natural disasters in Haiti. [ECF 17 at ¶ 38].
• Project2Morrow is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that provides education opportunities for Haitian students and directs aid to Haiti. Many of its members contributed funds to the Red Cross, relying on its assurances that their donations would go to Haitian victims of natural disasters [Id at ¶ 43].
• The Haitian Diaspora Federation is a 501(1)( c) (3) organization that for the last twenty five years have been providing aids to Haitian victims of natural disasters, whose members have donated money to the Red Cross for the specific purpose of aiding Haitian victims of natural disasters. Its members donated money based on the promises and assurances that said money would be used exclusively to aid Haitian victims of natural disasters.
Because these organizations exist precisely to advocate for the interests of Haitian earthquake victims, they have standing to sue on behalf of those they represent.
15
2. The Claims Asserted and Relief Requested Do Not Require Individual Member Participation
Defendants’ argument that HDPAC and Project2Morrow lack associational standing because their claims would require individual member participation is incorrect. Under Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977), an organization has associational standing if (1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right (2) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (3) the claims asserted and relief requested do not require individual participation.
Here, all three prongs are met. First, members of HDPAC, the Haitian Diaspora Federation and Project2Morrow—Haitian earthquake victims and donors—would have standing to sue individually because they were the intended beneficiaries of the Red Cross’s misappropriated funds. Second, the claims asserted—fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of the False Claims Act, etc.—are directly related to the organizations’ mission to ensure aid actually reaches Haitian victims. Third, at least some of the claims and relief sought do not require individual participation. Specifically, the following claims can be litigated without individualized proof:
• Federal False Claims Act (Count 2) – This claim alleges that the Red Cross falsely certified to USAID that grant funds were properly used, when in fact, funds were diverted to unrelated projects. The issue can be resolved based on financial records, audits, and witness testimony without requiring individual plaintiffs to testify.
• Unjust Enrichment (Count 5) – The claim asserts that the Red Cross collected and retained funds meant for Haitian victims but misused them. The core question—whether the Red Cross wrongfully benefitted—is independent of any individual plaintiff’s testimony.
• Intentional Misrepresentation (Count 7) – The false representations made by the Red Cross in fundraising campaigns and USAID applications can be evaluated based on
16
organizational records, advertisements, and statements rather than individual members’ testimony.
• Civil Conspiracy (Count 8) – The claim alleges a coordinated effort by Red Cross officials to misuse funds. This can be established through internal emails, reports, and depositions, rather than individual plaintiffs’ accounts.
• Negligent Hiring and Supervision (Count 9) – This claim focuses on the Red Cross’s failure to oversee its personnel, which led to mismanagement of funds. The issue can be proven through employment records and policies, not individual participation.
Thus, even if some claims might involve individual issues, many do not, and HDPAC and Project2Morrow still have standing to bring at least some of these claims.
3. The Organizations Seek to Redress a Concrete and Systemic Injury The relief sought by HDPAC, the Haitian Diaspora Federation and Project2Morrow is not individualized damages but rather (1) an accounting of how funds were used to determine the extent of the misappropriation [ECF 17 at ¶¶ 212-215], (2) Restitution of misused funds to be directed toward Haiti relief efforts [Id at ¶¶ 104-114], (3) Injunctive relief to prevent the Red Cross from engaging in similar fraudulent conduct in future disaster relief efforts [Id at ¶¶ 206-211] (4) exemplary punitive damages [Id at ¶¶ 197-202].
These remedies do not require individual member participation, as they address systemic misconduct by the Red Cross, rather than specific harms suffered by any one donor or victim. Thus, Defendants’ argument that HDPAC and Project2Morrow lack organizational standing misinterprets the legal standard and ignores the systemic nature of the claims. These organizations (1) exist explicitly to protect and assist Haitian victims of natural disasters (2) seek relief that is germane to their organizational missions; and (3) assert claims—particularly under the False Claims Act, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy—that do not require individual member
17
participation. Accordingly, HDPAC and Project2Morrow have organizational and associational standing, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on these grounds should be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied in its entirety. Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated standing through well-pleaded allegations, sworn declarations, and documentary evidence. The Named Donor Plaintiffs have provided clear evidence of their donations and reliance on the Red Cross’s misrepresentations, directly refuting Defendants’ claims. The Named Beneficiary Plaintiffs were not merely potential aid recipients but the intended beneficiaries of USAID grants and nearly $500 million in public donations, which the Red Cross was obligated to use exclusively for Haiti earthquake relief. The Organizational Plaintiffs, HDPAC and Project2Morrow, have both direct and associational standing, as their missions were undermined by the Red Cross’s fraudulent conduct, and several of their claims do not require individual member participation.
Defendants’ arguments rely on factual disputes—including the existence of donor contributions, the misallocation of funds, and the enforceability of express and implied contracts— that cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage. Courts have repeatedly held that standing challenges involving fact-intensive inquiries must be resolved through discovery and further evidentiary proceedings.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and allow this case to proceed to discovery, so that the full extent of Defendants’ misconduct and the harm caused to Plaintiffs may be properly adjudicated.
18
Dated: February 28, 2025
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ J. Wil Morris J. Wil Morris, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
2800 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 530
Miami, Florida 33137
Telephone: 305-444-3437
Fax: 305-444-3457 Email: wilm@morrislegalfla.com Florida Bar No.: 069493
Certificate of Service
I, Wil Morris, hereby certified that the foregoing Motion in opposition has been served to all the attorneys for the several Defendants who have appeared in this case via ECF on February 25, 2025.
/s/ J. Wil Morris
19