Quantum Information Specialists et al v. United State of America et al

Filing 32

ORDER - Plaintiffs' third amended complaint (Doc. 30) is construed as the active complaint, and Defendant is directed to file a response or other appropriate motions by January 13, 2012. The motion to remove Quantum as a plaintiff (Doc. 28) is g ranted. The Clerk shall remove Quantum as a party to this matter. The motion for oral argument (Doc. 29) is denied. The motion requesting the status of the case (Doc. 31) has been granted by entry of this order. (See document for details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/19/11.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Quantum Information Specialists; Leonard
J. Pearlstein; James L. McNully; and
Gilbert F. R. Rau,

No. CV11-00677-PHX-DGC
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

11
12

vs.

13

United States Department of Defense,
Defendant.

14
15
16

Plaintiffs have filed a third amended complaint (Doc. 30) pursuant to the Court’s

17

October 5, 2011 order (Doc. 27). Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to remove Quantum

18

Information Specialists (“Quantum”) as a plaintiff (Doc. 28), a motion for oral argument

19

on the motions (Doc. 29), and a motion requesting the status of the case (Doc. 31).

20

The third amended complaint asserts that this Court has original jurisdiction under

21

28 U.S.C. § 1331 and alleges a claim for theft of technologies under 18 U.S.C. § 1905,

22

the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Amendments, and Patent Law. Doc. 30, at 2. The Court

23

finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter because Plaintiffs’ claim is asserted under

24

§ 1905 and the Fifth Amendment.

25

IT IS ORDERED:

26

1.

Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint (Doc. 30) is construed as the active

27

complaint, and Defendant is directed to file a response or other appropriate motions by

28

January 13, 2012.

1
2

2.

The motion to remove Quantum as a plaintiff (Doc. 28) is granted. The

Clerk shall remove Quantum as a party to this matter.

3

3.

The motion for oral argument (Doc. 29) is denied.

4

4.

The motion requesting the status of the case (Doc. 31) has been granted by

5
6

entry of this order.
Dated this 19th day of December, 2011.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-