ORDER

JENNIFER G. ZIPPS, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the State of Arizona's Renewed Request for Order Re: Lack of Standing (Doc. 33.) For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs Cooper and Knaack for lack of standing.

On June 25, 2018, the State Defendants requested, in addition to other things, that the Court enter an order finding that Plaintiffs Cooper and Knaack lack standing in this matter. (Doc. 25.) At a hearing on June 26, 2018, the Court denied Defendants' request to the extent they requested dismissal for lack of standing pending further briefing. (Doc. 27.) The Court directed Plaintiffs Cooper and Knaack to file a memorandum of points and authorities within fourteen days of the hearing addressing the issue of their standing to bring this action. More than fourteen days have passed since the hearing and Plaintiffs Cooper and Knaack have not filed the memorandum as ordered by the Court. On July 17, 2018, the State Defendants filed the instant motion renewing their request to dismiss Plaintiffs Cooper and Knaack and noting Plaintiffs Cooper's and Knaack's failure to file a memorandum addressing standing as ordered by the Court.

Upon review of Plaintiffs Cooper's and Knaack's allegations, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs Cooper and Knaack lack standing. The "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). A plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact or an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and actual or imminent. Id. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of and it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. Here, neither Plaintiff Cooper nor Plaintiff Knaack has alleged a legal interest in regard to Plaintiff Hanes's child. Although Plaintiffs Cooper and Knaack have alleged that their home, which they share with Plaintiff Hanes, is subject to a warrantless search by the Department of Child Safety (DCS), the record does not reflect that any such searches have occurred or are likely to occur. Speculation that they may be subject to a future search by DCS, without more, is not enough to establish standing. As such, Plaintiffs Cooper and Knaack have no legally protected interest that may be invaded in this matter.

Plaintiffs Cooper and Knaack were given the opportunity to show that they have a legally cognizable interest in this litigation. The record to date fails to establish any such interest. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the State of Arizona's Renewed Request for Orders Re: Lack of Standing (Doc. 33) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Cooper and Knaack are dismissed for lack of standing.