12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

John P. Blumberg - CA State Bar No. 70200Ave Buchwald - CA State Bar No. 70305BLUMBERG LAW CORPORATION444 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 1500Long Beach, California 90802Tel No. (562) 437-0403; Fax No. (562) 432-0107 jblumberg@BlumbergLaw.comabuchwald@BlumbergLaw.com

Attorney for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL,Plaintiff,vs.LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO akaLAURA A. DIECKMAN,Defendant.

 ____________________________________ ))))))))))))))))))))))))CASE NO: 2:17-cv-09158-GW-SK 

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESIN SUPPORT OF MOTION TODISMISS FOR FAILURE TOSTATE A CLAIM UPON WHICHRELIEF CAN BE GRANTED [FRCP 12(b)(6)][

 Notice of Motion and Motion, Request for Judicial Notice and  Proposed Order concurrently filed herein

]Date: March 22, 2018Time: 8:30 a.m.Courtroom: 9DAction Filed: December 21, 2017Trial Date: NoneJudge: Hon. George H. WuMag. Judge: Hon. Steve Kim

1

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 2:17-cv-09158-GW-SK Document 13-1 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:47

 

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7I.ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7II.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7III.MOTION TO DISMISS: LEGAL STANDARD AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10IV.THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13V.THE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13VI.THE RELITIGATION EXCEPTION TO THEANTI-INJUNCTION ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15A. The Court Is Not Empowered to Enjoin the Pending State Action Because of the Preclusive Effect of the California Court of Appeal’s Final Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15B.If the Court is Empowered to Enjoin the PendingState Court Action, It Nevertheless Should Refrain From Doing So and Grant the Motion to Dismiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21VII.LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 2:17-cv-09158-GW-SK Document 13-1 Filed 02/20/18 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:48

 

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESUnited States Supreme Court Cases

 Ashcroft v. Iqbal 

, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) . . . . 10, 11

 Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotice Eng’rs,

398 U.S. 281, 90 S.Ct. 1739, 26 L.Ed.2d 234 (1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 16, 22

 Brown v. Felson,

442 U.S. 127, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) . . . . . . . . . 18

Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp.

, 486 U.S. 140, 108 S.Ct. 1684, 100 L.Ed.2d 127 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 15, 21

 Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Ala. Bank 

, 474 U.S. 518, 106 S.Ct. 768, 88 L.Ed.2d 877 (1986) . . . . . . . . . 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

Smith v Bayer Corp.

, 564 U.S. 299, 131 S.Ct. 2368,180 L.Ed.2d 341 . . . . . . . . 15, 16

Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp.,

433 U.S. 623, 97 S.Ct. 2881, 53 L.Ed.2d 1009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Ninth Circuit Cases

 Alton Box Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp.

, 682 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir.1982) . . . . . . . . . . . 14

 Amwest Mortgage Corp. v. Grady,

925 F.2d 1162 (9 Cir.1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

th

 Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. v. Webster 

, 796 F.2d 252 (9 Cir.1986) . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 15

th

 Bennett v. Medtronic

, 285 F.3d 801 (9 Cir.2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

th

 Blalock Eddy Ranch v. MCI Telecomm. Corp.

, 982 F.2d 371 (9 Cir.1992) . . . 15, 21

th

 Branch v. Tunnell 

, 14 F.3d 449 (9 Cir.1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

th

 Brother Records , Inc. v. Jardine,

 432 F.3d 939 (9 Cir.2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24

th

California v. Randstron

, 284 F.3d 969 (9 Cir.2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

th

Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California Collection Serv. Inc.,

911 F.2d 242 (9 Cir.1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

th

Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara

, 307 F.3d 1119 (9 Cir.2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

th

 Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co.

, 896 F.2d 1542 (9 Cir.1990) . . 11

th

 Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab.,

707 F.3d 1114 (9 Cir.2013) . . . . . . 27

th

3

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 2:17-cv-09158-GW-SK Document 13-1 Filed 02/20/18 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:49