Association For Information Mediat and Equipment et al v. The Regents of The University of California et al

Filing 16

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ( Motion set for hearing on 3/14/2011 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.), MOTION to Dismiss Case for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendant Gene Block, The Regents of The University of California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Slaughter, R)

1 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - #84065
2 [e-mail]
R. JAMES SLAUGHTER - #192813
3 [e-mail]
MICHAEL S. KWUN - #198945
4 [e-mail]
ANDREW F. DAWSON - #264421
5 [e-mail]
710 Sansome Street
6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1704
T: 415-391-5400/F: 415-397-7188
7
JONATHAN BAND - #122369
8 [e-mail]
21 Dupont Circle NW, 8th Floor
9 Washington, DC 20036
T: 202-296-5675/F: 202-872-0884
10
11
12

CHARLES F. ROBINSON - #113197
[e-mail]
KAREN J. PETRULAKIS - #168732
[e-mail]
ERIC K. BEHRENS - #79440
[e-mail]
University of California
Office of the General Counsel
1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607-5200
T: 510-987-9800/F: 510-987-9757

13 Attorneys for Defendants
The Regents of the University of California
14 and Dr. Gene Block
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

WESTERN DIVISION

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION
MEDIA AND EQUIPMENT, an
Illinois nonprofit membership
organization; and AMBROSE VIDEO
PUBLISHING, INC., a New York
corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a
California corporation; DR. GENE
BLOCK, CHANCELLOR OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
LOS ANGELES, an individual,
Defendants.

Case No. CV10-09378 CBM (MANx)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM

27
28
539550.01

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
CASE NO. CV10-09378 CBM (MANx)

1
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Defendants have moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

3 and 12(b)(6) for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety.
4

The Court has reviewed the moving, opposition, and reply papers and heard

5 argument from counsel. After considering the submissions and arguments, the
6 Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims
7 asserted. Moreover, the Court finds that permitting leave to amend would be
8 futile, as no amendment could cure the jurisdictional flaws in Plaintiffs’ suit.
9

Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion is therefore GRANTED in its

10 entirety and Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14 Date: ____________________, 2011
Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
United States District Court

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
539550.01

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
CASE NO. CV10-09378 CBM (MANx)