in this case do not require individualized proof from any of its members or necessitate the inclusion of the individual member because Plaintiff seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief, and individualized evidence is not necessary to establish the relief requested. See Concerned Citizens Around Murphy v. Murphy Oil USA Inc., 686 F.Supp.2d 663, 678 (E.D.La.2010). Defendant, however, argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the Plaintiff fails to identify a single member in its pleadings that is affected by Defendants’ purported unlawful conduct. The Court disagrees because the Plaintiff is not required to “name names” in its Complaint. Bldg. and Const. Trades Council of Buffalo, NY. and Vicinity v. Downtown Develop., Inc., 448 F.3d 138, 145 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The Sierra Club has moved for partial summary
holding plaintiff asserting association standing was not required to  name names in a complaint in order to properly allege injury in fact to its members recognizing that the government not the relator must have suffered the injury in fact required for article iii standing holding that the association of home builders lacked standing to seek relief in damages for alleged injuries to its members because whatever injury may have been suffered is peculiar to the individual member concerned and both the fact and extent of injury would require individualized proof holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision