In Danvers Motor Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (3d Cir. 2005) 432 F.3d 286 (authored by then Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., currently a Justice of the United States Supreme Court), the court stated: "A 'legally and judicially cognizable' injury-in-fact must be 'distinct and palpable,' not 'abstract or conjectural or hypothetical.' While it is difficult to reduce injury-in-fact to a simple formula, economic injury is one of its paradigmatic forms." (Danvers Motor Co., Inc., supra, at p. 291.) Danvers concluded a plaintiff's out-of-pocket expenses or money spent was a financial harm that constituted "injury in fact" for federal court standing purposes. (Id. at p. 292.) "Monetary harm is a classic form of injury-in-fact." (Id. at p. 293.) Judge Alito noted in conclusion: "Injury-in-fact is not Mount Everest. ('The contours of the injury-in-fact requirement, while not precisely defined, are very generous,' requiring only that claimant 'allege some specific, "identifiable trifle" of injury')." (Id. at p. 294)