However, any such waiver must be made "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently." Marsh, 105 F.3d at 111; see Lake James Community Volunteer Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Burke County, 149 F.3d 277, 280 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1106, 119 S.Ct. 874, 142 L.Ed.2d 775 (1999); United States v. Local 1804-1, 44 F.3d 1091, 1098 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1995); Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993); Erie Telecommunications, 853 F.2d at 1094; Sambo's Restaurants, 663 F.2d at 690. Moreover, the waiver must be established by "clear and compelling" evidence.

As Defendants did not assert that Coalition lacks standing, the court held “[t]he Coalition on Homelessness unquestionably has standing to pursue all forms of relief sought through this lawsuit.” It then denied the motion to dismiss the individual Plaintiffs for lack of standing, citing Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993), in which the Ninth Circuit held that “[t]he general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others.” Coal. on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 22-CV-05502-DMR, 2023 WL 3637032, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2023)

In Leonard v. Clark, the Ninth Circuit upheld a provision in a collective bargaining agreement limiting the First Amendment expression of a labor union. 12 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir. 1994).

See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264 (1977) (“Because of the presence of this plaintiff [with standing], we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit.”); Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others.”)

The Court need not make a standing determination for each individual. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993), as amended (Mar. 8, 1994) (citing Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 682 (1977)) ("The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others").

The Court need not make a standing determination for each individual. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993), as amended (Mar. 8, 1994) (citing Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 682 (1977)) ("The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others").

The Court need not make a standing determination for each individual. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993), as amended (Mar. 8, 1994) (citing Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 682 (1977)) ("The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others").

The Court need not make a standing determination for each individual. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993), as amended (Mar. 8, 1994) (citing Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 682 (1977)) ("The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others").

The Court need not make a standing determination for each individual. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993), as amended (Mar. 8, 1994) (citing Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 682 (1977)) ("The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others").

In any event, the First Amendment is not implicated where expression is restricted by negotiated agreement in exchange for certain benefits. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 670-71 (1991); Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993). In such cases, "[t]he parties themselves . . . determine the scope of their legal obligations, and any restrictions that may be placed on the publication of truthful information are self-imposed."