Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00677/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00677-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Quantum Information Specialists; Leonard 

J. Pearlstein; James L. McNully; and 

Gilbert F. R. Rau, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

United States Government; Executive 

Branch; and Department of Defense, 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-677-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 The United States, on behalf of all federal Defendants, has filed a motion to 

dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Doc. 11. The motion is fully briefed. Docs. 13, 15. Oral argument has 

not been requested. For reasons stated below, this action will be dismissed without 

prejudice. 

 As an initial matter, the amended complaint is signed only by Plaintiff Leonard 

Pearlstein. Doc. 4. Because Pearlstein is not a licensed attorney, he may not represent 

the other Plaintiffs in this action. Plaintiffs James McNully and Gilbert Rau may 

represent themselves by proceeding pro se, but Quantum Information Specialists may 

appear in this action only through licensed counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 

Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-202 (1993) (citing Osborn v. 

President of Bank of U.S., 9 Wheat. 738, 829, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824)). 

 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing “only that power 

Case 2:11-cv-00677-DGC Document 17 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all 

jurisdictional facts.” Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 

1990) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). 

Courts must presume a lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise. 

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. To overcome that presumption at the pleading stage, the 

plaintiff must provide a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 

jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). 

 Plaintiffs have not met their burden. The amended complaint cites the National 

Security Act, as amended, U.S.C. § 401 et seq., but explicitly states that “QIS will defer 

to the Court as to the Court’s jurisdiction involving national security[.]” Doc. 4 at 2. The 

Court concludes that the amended complaint fails to adequately assert the existence of 

federal jurisdiction. Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted in this regard. The 

motion will be denied as moot with respect to the argument that the amended complaint 

fails to state a claim to relief. 

 The Court should freely give leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. In this Circuit, a pro se litigant must be given leave to amend “unless 

it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); see 

Waters v. Young, 100 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996). 

 The Court, in the interest of justice, will dismiss the amended complaint without 

prejudice and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs shall have until 

July 22, 2011 to file a second amended complaint. As explained above, Quantum 

Information Specialists may appear in this action only through licensed counsel. The 

individual Plaintiffs may appear pro se, but the second amended complaint must be 

signed by each individual Plaintiff. 

 For purposes of the second amended complaint, Plaintiffs are directed to Rule 8 of 

Case 2:11-cv-00677-DGC Document 17 Filed 07/12/11 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint must contain a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a 

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). These 

pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate and discrete paragraphs. The 

paragraphs must be numbered in consecutive order, and each paragraph must be “simple, 

concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Each claim for relief must be set forth in 

separate numbered counts (i.e., count one, count two, etc.). 

 Plaintiffs are advised that the second amended complaint must plead “enough facts 

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility 

that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” demanding instead sufficient factual allegations to 

allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “[W]here the 

well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of 

misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is 

entitled to relief.’” Id. at 1950 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 

 Plaintiffs are further advised that they must become familiar with, and follow, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona (“Local Rules”). See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 

(9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern 

other litigants.”); Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 

1986) (“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which 

he litigates.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following 

Internet website: www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules of 

Civil Procedure may be obtained in the Clerk’s Office and are available online at the 

Court’s Internet website: www.azd.uscourts.gov (follow hyperlink titled “Opinions/ 

Case 2:11-cv-00677-DGC Document 17 Filed 07/12/11 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

Orders/Rules”). If Plaintiffs fail to prosecute this action, or fail to comply with the rules 

or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 

 Finally, Plaintiffs are advised that Defendants’ default has not been entered (see

Docs. 14, 16) given that they have appeared in this action through counsel and have 

timely responded to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss.

 IT IS ORDERED:

 1. The motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is granted in part and denied in part as 

set forth in this order. 

 2. The amended complaint (Doc. 4) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

 3. Plaintiffs shall have until July 22, 2011 to file, consistent with this order, a 

second amended complaint. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action without 

further order of the Court if Plaintiffs fail to meet this deadline. 

 Dated this 12th day of July, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00677-DGC Document 17 Filed 07/12/11 Page 4 of 4