Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Defendants' Reply Brief Supporting Motion To Dismiss

Defendants' Reply Brief Supporting Motion To Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22|Likes:
Published by rick7562
The Reply brief...
The Reply brief...

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: rick7562 on Feb 12, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/06/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
D
EFENDANTS
 
EPLY IN
S
UPPORT OF
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
1
C
ASE
 N
O
.
 
12-09620
 
DDP(RZ
X
)
AMALA
D.
 
H
ARRIS
 Attorney General of California D
OUGLAS
J.
 
W
OODS
Senior Assistant Attorney General M
ICHAEL
G
LENN
W
ITMER 
 Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 110717 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 897-4902 Fax: (213) 897-1071 E-mail: Michael.Witmer@doj.ca.gov
 Attorneys for Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor  Kamala D. Harris, California Attorney General and Julie Su, California Labor Commissioner 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF PERSONAL MANAGERS, INC., a  NEVADA not-for-profit corporation, Plaintiff,v. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of the State of California, in his official capacity; KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, in her official capacity; JULIE A. SU, California Labor Commissioner, in her official capacity,
 
Defendants.12-09620 DDP(RZx)
D
EFENDANTS
 
EPLY IN
S
UPPORT OF
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
C
OMPLAINT
Date: February 25, 2013 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 3 Judge: The Hon. Dean D. Pregerson Trial Date: None set Action Filed: 11/9/2012
Case 2:12-cv-09620-DDP-RZ Document 15 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:175
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
 
D
EFENDANTS
 
EPLY IN
S
UPPORT OF
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
 
i
C
ASE
 N
O
.
 
12-09620
 
DDP(RZ
X
)
I. The Absence of Criminal or Civil Penalties in the Talent Agency Act Does Not Mean Violations Have No Remedy ................. 3 II. The Opposition Does Not Overcome Sovereign Immunity of The Governor or Attorney General ....................................................... 6 III. The Opposition Does Not Establish the Existence of a “Case or Controversy” Between the Commissioner and Plaintiff ....................... 7 IV. Plaintiff Lacks Article III Standing Because It and Its Members Have Suffered No Harm Caused by State Action................................. 8 V. Plaintiff Has Not Alleged or Shown Any Instance of Arbitrary, Inconsistent or Discriminatory Application .......................................... 9 VI. All Of Plaintiff’s Remaining Arguments Lack Merit ......................... 11 A. The TAA Does Not Burden Interstate Commerce ................... 11 B. The Act Cannot Violate the Contracts Clause .......................... 12 C. The Act Cannot Violate the Thirteenth Amendment As It Does Not Compel Anyone to Work Against Their Will For Another ............................................................................... 12 D. The Act Cannot Violate the First Amendment ......................... 12 E. Plaintiff Should Be Barred From Conducting Discovery Unless and Until It Can State a Viable Theory ........................ 13 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 13
Case 2:12-cv-09620-DDP-RZ Document 15 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:176
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page
 
D
EFENDANTS
 
EPLY IN
S
UPPORT OF
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
 
ii
C
ASE
 N
O
.
 
12-09620
 
DDP(RZ
X
)
C
ASES
 
 Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Solimino
501 U.S. 104 (1991) .................................................................................................................. 4
City of Chicago v. Morales
527 U.S. 41 (1999) .............................................................................................................. 9, 10
Common Cause/Ga. v. Billups
554 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 8
 Ex parte Young
209 U.S. 123 (1908) .................................................................................................................. 6
 Hewitt v. Joyner
940 F.2d 1561 (9th Cir.1991) .................................................................................................... 4
 I.N.S. v. St. Cyr
533 U.S. 289 (2001) ................................................................................................................ 11
 Kolender v. Lawson
, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) .............................................................................................................. 10
 Lawrence Livermore Nat. Laboratory
131 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................................... 6
 Los Angeles County Bar Assn. v. Eu
979 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1992) ..................................................................................................... 6
 Lujan v.Defenders of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) .................................................................................................................. 9
 Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Blasi
42 Cal. 4th 974 (2008) .................................................................................................. 3, 4, 6, 7
 N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning
522 F.3d 1153 (11th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 8
Siegel v. Bradstreet
2008 WL 4195949 .................................................................................................................... 7
Siegel v. Bradstreet
 No. CV 08-2480 CAS ............................................................................................................... 7
Smith v. Gougen
415 U.S. 566 (1972) ................................................................................................................ 10
Case 2:12-cv-09620-DDP-RZ Document 15 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:177

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->