Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01766/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01766-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15-cv-1766-BEN (BLM)

ORDER DENYING CROSSCLAIMANT UNIVERSITY OF

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL CROSSCOMPLAINT

vs.

PAUL S. AISEN, et al.,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is Cross-Claimant University of Southern California’s

Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Cross-Complaint. The motion is denied.

University of Southern California alleges that since the filing of the original

complaint the Cross-Defendants have interfered with the management of four

transferred studies and have over-billed or submitted fraudulent invoices to Yale

University for work on the FYN Study. On the basis of this and other afterdiscovered information, University of Southern California seeks leave to

supplement its cross-complaint to add a claim for tortious interference with

contracts. 

The motion is timely. However, the motion is denied because it would add a

new cross-claim based on more recent actions for which the Regents and the two

individual defendants acting in their official capacities have Eleventh Amendment

- 1 - 15cv1766

Case 3:15-cv-01766-BEN-JLB Document 145 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 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

immunity from suit in this Court.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

The original complaint was removed from the Superior Court of California on

August 10, 2015. A cross-complaint was filed the same day. Removal jurisdiction

was based upon a solid, but narrow, foundation. That foundation is limited to cases

where the State (i.e., the Regents of the University of California) waived its

Eleventh Amendment immunity by taking the position of a plaintiff and asserting a

right to relief under the federal Copyright Act. Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446, 1454;

Justmed, Inc. v. Byce, 600 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2010). The original crosscomplaint was based upon the same nucleus of operative facts and is compulsory

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a). Because of that fact, the crosscomplaint also rests on the narrow foundation of federal jurisdiction. Raygor v.

Regents of the University of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533, 540 (2002) (Article III

permits supplemental jurisdiction if the federal and state claims derive from a

common nucleus of operative facts and comprise one constitutional case). 

However, the newly proposed cross-claim is based upon a different, newer,

nucleus of operative facts. While related to the original claims and cross-claims, the

newly-urged claims arise from actions that took place after the original claims were

filed and in reaction to events that followed. Normally, such permissive claims may

be brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(e). San Luis & Delta-Mendota

Water Authority v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 236 F.R.D. 491, 498 (E.D. Cal. 2006)

(Rule 15(d) designed to permit expansion of existing litigation to include events

occurring after the filing of the original complaint). 

However, because the proposed cross-claim arises out of a separate nucleus

of operative facts and seeks relief against the sovereign State of California (in the

form of the Regents), the proposed cross-claim may not be brought in this federal

forum. Raygor, 534 U.S. at 542 (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)’s grant of jurisdiction does

- 2 - 15cv1766

Case 3:15-cv-01766-BEN-JLB Document 145 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 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

not extend to claims against nonconsenting state defendants). Sovereign immunity

is to be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. Harjo v. U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services, 811 F.3d 1086, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). 

Here, construing Eleventh Amendment immunity strictly in favor of the proposed

sovereign cross-defendant, the Court finds the Regents are immune from suit in this

federal forum for the more recent events described in the proposed cross-claim. 

Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991)

(sovereign immunity prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an

unconsenting state); Stanley v. Trustees of California State University, 433 F.3d

1129, 1133 (9th Cir. 2006) (Eleventh Amendment generally renders states immune

from private damages claims brought in federal court). 

III. CONCLUSION

Cross-Claimants’ motion for leave to file a supplemental cross-claim based

upon a separate nucleus of operative facts is denied.

DATED: October 26, 2016

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv1766

Case 3:15-cv-01766-BEN-JLB Document 145 Filed 10/26/16 Page 3 of 3