that Plaintiffs’ allegation that the transfer was not valid is a mere conclusion and does not state a plausible claim. Moreover, Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the validity of any such assignment. An action to declare an assignment void could only be brought by someone who can demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged assignment. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). No such injury is alleged. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not allege that they are either parties to the assignment or intended beneficiaries; thus, they do not possess standing to assert a claim based on the assignment’s validity. See Wolf v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 830 F.Supp.2d 153, 161-62 (W.D.Va.2011) (<HOLDING>). See also Livonia Prop. Holdings, L.L.C. v.
holding that assignment of property without more did not terminate the franchise relationship holding that even if the individual who signed the mortgage assignment lacked the authority to do so the assignment would still be binding on mers because he purported to be authorized holding plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the validity of an assignment from mers to bac because she was not a party to the assignment and the assignment did not affect her underlying obligation to make timely payments holding that the transfer of all rights interests and control in property assigned was an effective assignment occurring at the time the assignment was perfected not later when proceeds paid holding assignment of a mortgage was not subject to article 9