for standing imposed by Article III. There are several distinct, concrete injuries that the plaintiffs will imminently suffer if the Department’s plan is implemented. The plaintiffs do not need to prove with mathematical certai suffer injury as a result of the Department’s plan, because they are able to calculate its effects by reference to the results of the Post-Enumeration Survey completed in 1992, which closely, mirrors the methodology the Department will utilize as part of its plan for Census 2000. Courts have consistently found that plaintiffs challenging the census have satisfied the requirements of Article III standing where they have made allegations similar to those contained in the Complaint in this case. See City of Detroit v. Franklin, 4 F.3d 1367, 1374-75 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); State of Texas v. Mosbacher, 783 F.Supp. 308
holding that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the defendants actions based upon their claim that the census undercount will result in a loss of federal funds holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring securities claims relating to funds that plaintiffs did not own holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties holding that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation where their only allegation was the payment of artificially inflated prices for defendants securities and their complaint failed to provide defendants with notice of what plaintiffs relevant economic loss might be or of what the causal connection might be between that loss and the alleged misrepresentation at issue  holding that a defendants counterclaim that is based on the breach of the same maritime insurance contract as the main claim  cannot be granted a jury trial because the resolution of the defendants claim would dispose of all or part of the plaintiffs action the net result would be to resolve the case in a jury trial despite the plaintiffs 9h election