Where a putative class action alleging that a defendant employer failed to comply with the notice provision of the Massachusetts lie detector statute has been removed from Superior Court, the case must be remanded because the plaintiff lacks Article III standing.
“Plausibly supported facts supporting Article III standing are wholly lacking here. … Similar to Crane [v. Cheesecake Factory Inc., No. 25-CV-11727-ADB, 2025 WL 4066478, at *2 (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2025)], here, where all that is alleged in this action is a pure informational injury without any downstream consequence, [plaintiff Sam] Goldstone lacks Article III standing. …
“This Court is therefore without subject matter jurisdiction, and the action is remanded. …
“… The action will now properly proceed before, and the motion to dismiss will be decided by, the Superior Court.”
Goldstone v. Deloitte Consulting LLP (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-058-26) (7 pages) (Young, J.) (Civil Action No. 25-cv-11875-WGY) (Feb. 4, 2026).
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Spacey's fiery testimony is the centerpiece of an ongoing trial to determine whether the production company behind the Netflix hit is owed $100 million in losses. Kevin Spacey testified about his ...