remain impartial. Plaintiffs discovered what they believe is evidence of that bias after the DNC’s computer servers were penetrated by hackers. Shortly thereafter, they brought this putative class action against the DNC and its former chair. In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true——that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponents. Plaintiffs assert several fraud-type claims. But they do not allege they ever heard or acted upon the DNC’s claims of neutrality. Plaintiffs also assert a tort claim on behalf of all registered Democrats, even though the harm they allege impacted all Democratic-primary-eligible voters——and under their theory, the entire body politic——the same way. And finally, Plaintiffs claim that donors to the DNC are at an increased risk of identity theft as a result of the computer hack. But they do not allege that the DNC regularly keeps the type of information necessary to facilitate identity theft or that the hackers targeted, much less obtained, that information. The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct——the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not, which 2

Case 0:16-cv-61511-WJZ Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 2 of 28