Ad Global Fund, LLC, by v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
AD GLOBAL FUND, LLC, BY AND THROUGH
NORTH HILLS HOLDING, INC., A PARTNER
OTHER THAN THE TAX MATTERS PARTNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1252
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:04-cv-00336-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis.
______________________
Decided: August 22, 2025
______________________
S TEVEN RAY MATHER , I, Mather Law Corporation, Los
Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
ANTHONY T. SHEEHAN, Tax Division, United States De-
partment of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defend-
ant-appellee. Also represented by J ACOB EARL
CHRISTENSEN, D AVID A. HUBBERT .
______________________
Case: 24-1252 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 1 of 7 --

AD GLOBAL FUND, LLC v. US 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, P ROST and REYNA, Circuit
Judges.
P ROST , Circuit Judge.
AD Global Fund, LLC (“AD Global Fund”), by and
through a notice partner, North Hills Holding, Inc. (“North
Hills”), appeals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ dis-
missal of its case.1 For the reasons below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
North Hills filed its complaint in the Court of Federal
Claims over twenty years ago, challenging an IRS-issued
Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment
concerning AD Global Fund’s 1999 partnership return.
In July 2011, the parties filed a joint status report with
the Court of Federal Claims requesting that it stay the case
(or rather, continue its already-entered stay) pending par-
allel U.S. Tax Court proceedings concerning David Green-
berg and William Goddard—two AD Global Fund partners
who had received notices from the IRS converting their
partnership items to non-partnership items. J.A. 482–84.
In support of this request, North Hills represented that
Greenberg and Goddard were “the only purported part-
ners . . . who wish[ed] to litigate the remaining issues in
this case,” and that “[f]urther substantive proceedings in
the Court of Federal Claims w[ould] only be necessary if
the . . . Tax Court decides that the conversion notices are
invalid, since only then will Greenberg and Goddard’s AD
Global Fund items be partnership items.” J.A. 483.2 Days
1 Because North Hills initiated and has continued to
litigate this case, we refer to North Hills as the relevant
litigant, even though it has undertaken this litigation as a
notice partner of AD Global Fund.
2 North Hills had made a similar representation as
early as September 2010. It referenced its
Case: 24-1252 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 2 of 7 --

AD GLOBAL FUND, LLC v. US 3
later, the Court of Federal Claims continued its stay, ob-
serving that a decision by the Tax Court would “determine
if further proceedings are necessary in this case.” Order
at 1, AD Glob. Fund, LLC ex rel. N. Hills Holding, Inc. v.
United States, No. 1:04-cv-00336 (Fed. Cl. July 13, 2011),
ECF No. 80.
Things continued like this for the next several years.
The parties would file a joint status report saying that
Greenberg and Goddard were the only ones who wished to
litigate the remaining issues in this case; they would re-
quest that the stay continue pending resolution of the Tax
Court proceedings; and the Court of Federal Claims would
continue the stay accordingly.
In January 2023, the parties notified the Court of Fed-
eral Claims that the Tax Court proceedings were “over”
and that “the basis for the stay in this case ha[d] ended.”
J.A. 550.
The Court of Federal Claims then ordered North Hills
to show cause why it should not dismiss the case. Given
the outcome of the Tax Court proceedings, the court ques-
tioned whether Greenberg and Goddard had a “cognizable
interest in this litigation[,] since they d[id] not have AD
Global [Fund] partnership items.” J.A. 556. And it noted
that, although North Hills had (more recently) asserted
“that there is at least one indirect partner who could
“understand[ing] that, by the time the . . . conversion no-
tices were issued, all the other partners in AD Global Fund
had settled, leaving only the interests of . . . Greenberg and
Goddard at issue in this action.” J.A. 470–71 (capitaliza-
tion normalized). And it maintained that, “[i]f the conver-
sion notices were validly issued, this action will effectively
be completed . . . as there will be no affected taxpayers as-
serting an interest in the outcome of this proceeding.” J.A.
472 (capitalization normalized).
Case: 24-1252 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 3 of 7 --

AD GLOBAL FUND, LLC v. US 4
possibly have an interest, this indirect partner remain[ed]
unidentified and, in any case, ha[d] not stated an intent to
pursue his or her rights . . . after 19 years of litigation.”
J.A. 556.
North Hills’ response to the show-cause order did not
dispute that Greenberg and Goddard had no cognizable in-
terest in the case. Nor did it specify anyone else having
such an interest. Instead, it alluded to other (albeit un-
named) AD Global Fund partners and argued that the gov-
ernment had the burden to show that there was no
remaining partner with such an interest. J.A. 560. The
government responded that North Hills’ failure (or refusal)
to identify any partner with a cognizable interest in the
case rendered the Court of Federal Claims without juris-
diction, because there was “no case or controversy before
the [c]ourt.” J.A. 565.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case. In do-
ing so, it acknowledged that the parties had briefed
whether there were any remaining partners with an inter-
est sufficient to satisfy the case-and-controversy require-
ment of standing. AD Glob. Fund, LLC ex rel. N. Hills
Holding, Inc. v. United States, 167 Fed. Cl. 798, 799 n.1
(2023). It also observed that the parties did not dispute
that Greenberg and Goddard no longer had such an inter-
est. Id. Ultimately, however, the court declined to reach
the standing question; instead, it dismissed upon conclud-
ing that it had already resolved the only purportedly re-
maining issue in the case and that there was no basis for
revisiting that resolution. See id. at 799–803, 799 n.1.
North Hills timely appealed. Our jurisdiction over ap-
peals from final decisions of the Court of Federal Claims is
supplied by 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
“We may affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal
on any ground supported by the record.” Wyandot Nation
Case: 24-1252 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 4 of 7 --

AD GLOBAL FUND, LLC v. US 5
v. United States, 858 F.3d 1392, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Here, we do so because North Hills lacked standing.
The requirement that a plaintiff have standing derives
from Article III of the Constitution, which limits federal
courts to deciding “Cases” or “Controversies.” See, e.g.,
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 704 (2013) (quoting
U.S. CONST . art. III, § 2).3 The “irreducible constitutional
minimum of standing” has three elements: injury in fact,
causation, and redressability. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). The need to satisfy these
three elements “persists throughout the life” of the litiga-
tion. Wittman v. Personhuballah, 578 U.S. 539, 543 (2016).
And “[t]he party invoking federal jurisdiction”—here,
North Hills—“bears the burden of establishing these ele-
ments,” with “the manner and degree of evidence required
at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S.
at 561.
At least by the time the Court of Federal Claims dis-
missed the case, North Hills lacked standing because it
failed to identify—let alone adequately prove—the exist-
ence of a redressable injury. For example, North Hills does
not allege that it has such an injury itself. Compare Appel-
lee’s Br. 21–22, with Reply Br. 15–16. Nor does it identify
anyone else having such an injury. See Oral Arg. at
8:17–23 (Counsel: “I don’t have a name.”).4 Instead, it says
that someone told its counsel that some partners have not
3 The Court of Federal Claims, “though an Article I
court, applies the same standing requirements enforced by
other federal courts created under Article III.” Starr Int’l
Co. v. United States, 856 F.3d 953, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(cleaned up).
4 No. 24-1252, https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.
gov/default.aspx?fl=24-1252_07082025.mp3.
Case: 24-1252 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 5 of 7 --

AD GLOBAL FUND, LLC v. US 6
settled with the government.5 See id. at 4:20–5:10 (Coun-
sel: “I have been told that there are partners that have not
settled, and I’ve been told that by the person that . . . has
hired me . . . in this case . . . .”); see also id. at 6:37–46. Un-
der these circumstances—where it is not otherwise clear
that there is anyone with a redressable injury, and where
North Hills has not offered any evidence regarding such an
injury—its showing does not establish standing. See Witt-
man, 578 U.S. at 545 (“We have made clear that the party
invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establish-
ing that he has suffered an injury by submitting affidavits
or other evidence,” and “[w]hen challenged by a court (or by
an opposing party) concerned about standing, the party in-
voking the court’s jurisdiction cannot simply allege a non-
obvious harm, without more.” (cleaned up)).
Resisting this conclusion, North Hills argues that it did
not have to prove standing; rather, the government had to
disprove it. See Reply Br. 12–15. It reasons that, because
the government would have been a party to any partner’s
settlement with the government, the government knows
“whether all partners in AD Global [Fund] have resolved
their partnership items.” Id. at 14–15. Therefore, accord-
ing to North Hills, the government must show that North
Hills lacked standing by showing that all partners have
settled. See id.
We reject North Hills’ argument. “The party invoking
federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing”
standing, Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, and North Hills has sup-
plied no legal authority or persuasive justification for de-
parting from that bedrock principle. As to its reasoning
about the government’s knowledge of settlements, North
Hills confirmed that the various partners themselves would
5 The apparent implication of this representation is
that, if a partner has not settled, it must have an injury
that would suffice for North Hills’ standing here.
Case: 24-1252 Document: 43 Page: 6 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 6 of 7 --

AD GLOBAL FUND, LLC v. US 7
know whether they had settled. See Oral Arg. at 7:48–8:13.
And, presumably, those partners would likewise know if
they had a redressable injury. North Hills has not ade-
quately explained why it could not have learned of any re-
dressable injury from the partners themselves. More
generally, it has provided no sound reason to be relieved of
its burden to prove standing—a burden that, as explained
above, it failed to carry in this case.
CONCLUSION
We have considered North Hills’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1252 Document: 43 Page: 7 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 7 of 7 --