SUMMARY ORDER
Nastasi & Associates, Inc. (“Nastasi”), appeals from a March 11, 2020 judgment of the district court granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and subsequent order denying Nastasis motion for reconsideration. The district court held that Nastasi lacked Article III standing to pursue its claims because it had assigned its assets, including its legal claims, to the “Franklin D. Nastasi Trust.” We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
In Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., this Court held that “a pre-suit assignment does not extinguish Article III standing,” clarifying that “there is a distinction between having standing to pursue a claim and being a real party in interest with respect to that claim, only the latter of which is implicated by an assignment.” 991 F.3d 370, 380 (2d Cir. 2021). Neither party contests that in consideration of this Courts recent decision, the district courts dismissal, on the basis that Nastasi lacked Article III standing, was in error. As to the district courts alternative holding under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the courts fact-finding as to the “real party in interest” and its determination that Nastasi had a “reasonable time ․ for the real party in interest to ratify, join, or be substituted into the action” may have been impacted by its determination that the issue was a matter of Article III standing. See Special App. 16–17 n.1 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3)). We therefore remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of this Courts decision in Fund Liquidation Holdings.
* * *
We have considered Nastasis remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
1
Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this order.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Appellants pending motion requesting that this Court take judicial notice of a filing in the related state-court action is denied as moot.