Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits."). 20 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Accord Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514, 122 S.Ct. 992 ("If a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding.”); Phillips, 408 F.3d at 128. 21 . Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). 22 . Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Accord Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 262 (2d Cir.2006); New York P 8-39 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d
holding that the plaintiff as a loss payee under a fidelity insurance policy had standing to sue the insurer directly holding that plaintiffs had standing because they were directly affected by the laws and practices against which their complaints were directed holding that under the resource conservation and recovery act rcra plaintiffs had standing to sue a landfill that was across the street from their home because if the landfill is not run as required by rcra plaintiffs are directly confronted with the risks that rcra sought to minimize fires explosions vectors scavengers and groundwater contamination holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act