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