Madhuri Trivedi v. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

When (under Spokeo, Inc.,136 S. Ct.at1548, Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ,Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560-561 ) (1)injury-in fact (2)Article III standing and(3)prudential standing; requirements are met, pleaded with evidence that plaintiff has "suffered recurrent" injury, been "wronged again in similar way" Question is Whether court can deny injunctive relief ( dismiss with prejudice with no leave to amend) In wake of growing influence of multinationals, selective prosecution (including but not limited to going after individuals, young kids for HARSH indictments under computer fraud abuse act); also women in tech face uphill battle; Question is Whether Anti retaliatory provision - protection, Relief under one or more of the following federal laws:-(1)HIPPA (2)False claims act (as per FBI; petitioner's employer GE matter was quitam)(3)8 U.S.C. § 1324b (4) 42 U.S.C. 299b22(5)DOD frank act SEC(when whistleblower has first done internal complaint about such practices )(6)10 U.S.C. 2409, "protection from reprisal for disclosure of certain information," Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Subpart 203.9, "Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees."(7)Civil rights Title VII (8)Tort (9)Biven action under supreme court(9) HITECH