Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman concludes, “The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,” because they cannot satisfy the injury in fact and redressability requirements. (Def.’ Mot. At 9.) The Court disagrees. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ alleged discrimination and equal protection claims are sufficiently particularized and concrete to plead an injury in fact. Defendants separately argue that Plaintiffs’ claims for damages and injunctive relief do not satisfy the redressability requirement. (Defs.’ Mot. At 11-16.) The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the Defendants’ alleged discrimination, denial of equal protection, and conspiracy to violate their rights, and in part on Wong’s status as a minority candidate. Defendants’ mootness arguments fail adequately to address all of Plaintiffs’ allegations, including those pertaining to alleged discrimination of a minority candidate. In summary, Defendants have not carried their heavy burden of demonstrating that Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot, and therefore the Court finds that those claims satisfy the redressability requirement. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs satisfy the redressability requirement, and Plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring their claims in federal court.”