proof. See, e.g., Rent Stabilization Ass’n v. Dinkins, 5 F.3d 591, 596 (2d Cir.1993) (finding that an association of landlords did not have standing to challenge city rent regulations on takings grounds, because establishing the takings claim would require a “factual inquiry for each landlord who alleges that he has suffered a taking [in order] to determine the landlord’s particular return based on a host of individualized financial data”); Bano, 361 F.3d at 714-15 (finding that organizations representing individual landowners did not have standing to pursue claims for damages on behalf of their members for bodily harm and damage to real property resulting from groundwater contamination, which necessarily would require individualized proof); Warth, 422 U.S. at 515-16, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (<HOLDING>). Thus, Defendants argue that because a central
holding that an organization of construction firms could not seek damages for the profits and business lost by its members because whatever injury might have been suffered is peculiar to the individual member concerned and both the fact and extent of injury would require individualized proof holding that an organization whose members are injured may represent those members even where the organization itself cannot show injury 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 a nonprofit organization lacked standing under unruh because its civil rights had not been personally violated and it failed to show that any of its members would suffer injury holding an organization had standing because some of its individual members did