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
Estate of Robert Graham, Chuck Close, Laddie John Dill Et Al. v. Sotheby's Inc. (C.D. Cal.) (Motion to Dismiss, filed 1-12-12)

Estate of Robert Graham, Chuck Close, Laddie John Dill Et Al. v. Sotheby's Inc. (C.D. Cal.) (Motion to Dismiss, filed 1-12-12)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 376 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: Charles Colman Law, PLLC on Jan 14, 2012
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

01/14/2012

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
PAUL T. FRIEDMAN (CA SBN 98381)PFriedman@mofo.comDEANNE E. MAYNARD (
Pro Hac Vice
)DMaynard@mofo.comMORRISON & FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: 415.268.7000Facsimile: 415.268.7522Attorneys for Defendant SOTHEBY’S, INC.
 Additional Counsel Listed on Following Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACENTRAL DIVISIONESTATE OF ROBERT GRAHAM,CHUCK CLOSE, LADDIE JOHNDILL, individually and on behalf of allothers similarly situated,Plaintiffs,v.SOTHEBY’S, INC.,Defendant.CASE NO.: 2:11-cv-08604-JHN-FFM
(1)DEFENDANTS’ JOINTMOTION TO DISMISS THECOMPLAINTS;(2)REQUEST FOR JUDICIALNOTICE IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANTS’ JOINTMOTION TO DISMISS THECOMPLAINTS
(filed underseparate cover)
;(3)DECLARATION OF JASON D.RUSSELL IN SUPPORTOFJOINTMOTION TO DISMISSTHE COMPLAINTS
(filed underseparate cover)
;(4)[PROPOSED] ORDER
(lodgedunder separate cover)
.
Hon. Jacqueline H. NguyenCourtroom: 790Hearing: March 12, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
Case 2:11-cv-08604-JHN -FFM Document 17 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 65 Page ID #:66
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
THE SAM FRANCIS FOUNDATION;ESTATE OF ROBERT GRAHAM;CHUCK CLOSE; LADDIE JOHNDILL; individually and on behalf of allothers similarly situated,Plaintiffs,v.CHRISTIE’S, INC., a New Yorkcorporation,Defendant.CASE NO.: 2:11-cv-08605-JHN-FFM
 Additional Counsel 
STEVEN A. REISS (
Pro Hac Vice
)steven.reiss@weil.comHOWARD B. COMET (
Pro Hac Vice
)howard.comet@weil.comWEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP767 Fifth AvenueNew York, New York 10153Telephone: 212.310.8000Facsimile: 212.310.8007Attorneys for Defendant SOTHEBY’S, INC.JASON D. RUSSELL (CA SBN 169219) jason.russell@skadden.comHILLARY A. HAMILTON (CA SBN 218233)hillary.hamilton@skadden.comJENNIFER E. LAGRANGE (CA SBN 238984) jennifer.lagrange@skadden.comSKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP300 South Grand AvenueLos Angeles, California 90071-3144Telephone: 213.687.5000Facsimile: 213.687.5600Attorneys for Defendant CHRISTIE’S, INC.
Case 2:11-cv-08604-JHN -FFM Document 17 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 65 Page ID #:67
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
i
D
EFENDANTS
J
OINT
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that on March 12, 2012 at 2:00 p.m., or as soonthereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 790 of the above-entitled Court,located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, DefendantsSotheby’s, Inc. and Christie’s, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) will, and hereby do,move the Court for an order dismissing this action pursuant to Federal Rules of CivilProcedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6).Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the California Resale Royalties Act, CaliforniaCivil Code § 986(a) (“CRRA”). The grounds for this Motion are that: (1) the CRRAis unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable, because it violates the CommerceClause of the U.S. Constitution in that it constitutes an impermissible directregulation of interstate commerce and serves no legitimate local interest; (2) theCRRA is unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable, because it effects a
er se
taking of private property in violation of the U.S. and California constitutions; (3) theCopyright Act of 1976 both expressly and impliedly preempts the CRRA;(4) punitive damages are unavailable as a matter of law; (5) the claims of the Estateof Robert Graham must be dismissed because an estate or trust is not a legal entityand has no capacity to sue; and (6) in any event, Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently pleadtheir claims, notably, the existence of timely sales allegedly subject to the CRRA.This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandumof Points and Authorities, all pleadings and files in two related matters—
 Estate of  Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby’s, Inc
., No. 2:11-cv-08604-JHN-FFM (C.D. Cal.),and
The Sam Francis Foundation, et al. v. Christie’s, Inc
., No. 2:11-cv-08605-JHN-FFM (C.D. Cal.), all matters of which this Court may take judicial notice, and uponsuch other and further oral or documentary evidence as may be presented to theCourt at or prior to the hearing on this Motion.This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to CentralDistrict of California Local Rule 7-3, which took place on January 9, 2012, although
Case 2:11-cv-08604-JHN -FFM Document 17 Filed 01/12/12 Page 3 of 65 Page ID #:68

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->