DMEAST #10118497 v3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

PHILIP J. BERG, : 

: 

Plaintiff : 

: 

v. : Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS 

: 

BARACK OBAMA, et al., : 

: 

Defendants : 

 

DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S 

AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), defendants Democratic National 

Committee and Senator Barack Obama respectfully move the Court for an order 

dismissing the Complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction 

over the claim asserted and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, accompanying this Motion is a Brief in Support of 

Motion to Dismiss and a proposed Order. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 24, 2008 /s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr. 

John P. Lavelle, Jr. 

Attorney I.D. PA 54279 

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & 

INGERSOLL, LLP 

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

(215) 864-8603 

(215) 864-9125 (Fax) 

lavellej@ballardspahr.com 
DMEAST #10118497 v3 2

Of Counsel: 

Joseph E. Sandler 

SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC 

300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102 

Washington, D.C. 20003 

Telephone: (202) 479-1111 

Fax: (202) 479-1115 

sandler@sandlerreiff.com

Robert F. Bauer 

General Counsel, Obama for America 

PERKINS COIE 

607 Fourteenth Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005-2003 

Telephone: 202.628.6600 

Facsimile: 202.434.1690 

RBauer@perkinscoie.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Senator Barack Obama and the 

Democratic National Committee 
DMEAST #10118497 v3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

PHILIP J. BERG, : 

: 

Plaintiff : 

: 

v. : Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS 

: 

BARACK OBAMA, et al., : 

: 

Defendants : 

 : 

 

BRIEF OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA 

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama submit 

this Brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s allegations 

regarding Senator Obama are patently false, but even taking them as true for purposes of 

this Motion, plaintiff’s suit must be dismissed immediately. This Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of 

a candidate for President of the United States. Plaintiff fails to state a claim in any event 

because there is no federal cause of action asserted in the Complaint. 

I. Allegations of the Complaint

Plaintiff Berg alleges that he is a “Democratic American,” Cmplt. ¶6, and that he 

is a “Democratic American Citizen.” Id. ¶44. Mr. Berg then alleges that Barack Obama, 

the Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve 
DMEAST #10118497 v3 2

as President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges 

(contrary to fact) that Senator Obama is not a natural-born citizen. Id. ¶3. Mr. Berg 

seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for President; an 

injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction barring 

the Democratic National Committee from nominating him. 

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review 

In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction, the Court is to determine “whether the complaint alleges facts on its face 

which, if taken as true, would be sufficient to invoke the district court’s jurisdiction.” 

FOCUS v. Allegheny County Ct. of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 840 (3d Cir. 1996). The 

plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing the 

elements of standing. Id. And in reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court “must accept all factual allegations in 

the complaint as true” but “is not, however, required to accept legal conclusions either 

alleged or inferred . . . .” Washam v. Stesis, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50520 9 (E.D. Pa. 

2008), citing Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 1968, 1974 (2007) (plaintiff 

must state a plausible claim for relief). Thus, although Mr. Berg’s factual allegations 

about Senator Obama’s citizenship are ridiculous and patently false, the Court must of 

course accept them as true for purposes of this Motion. 
DMEAST #10118497 v3 3

B. The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Because Plaintiff Has 

No Standing To Assert His Claim 

“‘[T]he rules of standing, whether as aspects of the Art. III case or controversy 

requirement or as reflections of prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of 

the courts, are threshold determinants of the propriety of judicial intervention.’” Penn. 

Prison Society v. Cortes, 508 F.3d 156, 158 (3d Cir. 2007), quoting Warth v. Seldin 422 

U.S. 490-517-18 (1975). In order to establish the “‘irreducible constitutional minimum 

of standing’ under Article III of the Constitution” plaintiff must show, first, an “‘injury in 

fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and 

particularized, . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Goode 

v. City of Philadelphia, 539 F.3d 311, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17153 *9-10 (3d Cir. 

2008), quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). 

In this case, Mr. Berg fails to allege any concrete, specific injury in fact to 

himself. He alleges that if Senator Obama is elected as President and then discovered to 

be ineligible, “plaintiff as well as other Democratic Americans will suffer Irreparable 

Harm including but not limited to: (1) Functional or Actual, Disenfranchisement of large 

numbers of Citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been 

deprived of the ability to choose a Nominee of their liking . . . .” Complt. ¶6. It is wellestablished, however, that a voter’s loss of the ability to vote for a candidate “of their 

liking” does not confer standing because the actual injury is not to the voter but to the 

candidate. “[A] voter fails to present an injury-in-fact when the alleged harm is abstract 

and widely shared or is only derivative of a harm experienced by a candidate.” Crist v. 

Comm’n on Presidential Debates, 262 F.3d 193, 194 (2d Cir. 2001)(per curiam); see, to 

the same effect, Becker v. Federal Election Comm’n, 230 F.3d 381, 389-90 (1st Cir. 
DMEAST #10118497 v3 4

2000)(supporters of a candidate lacked standing to challenge exclusion of that candidate 

from Presidential debates); Gottlieb v. Federal Election Comm’n, 143 F.3d 618 (D.C. Cir. 

1998)(supporter of a candidate had no standing to challenge dismissal of agency action 

against a competing candidate). 

For that reason, a voter does not have standing to challenge the qualifications of a 

candidate for President of the United States. In Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp.2d 713 (N.D. 

Tex.), aff’d w/o opinion, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000), voters sued to challenge the 

qualifications of then-Gov. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to be elected President 

and Vice-President of the U.S., respectively, on the grounds that they were both 

“inhabitants” of Texas in violation of the requirement of the Twelfth Amendment that the 

President and Vice President shall not be “inhabitants” of the same state. The Court 

dismissed the case on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. 

The Court found that plaintiffs’ assertion that a violation of the Twelfth 

Amendment “will harm them by infringing their right to cast a meaningful vote . . . fails 

to satisfy the Article III requirement of a ‘distinct and palpable injury.’ . . . This type of 

injury is necessarily abstract and plaintiffs conspicuously fail to demonstrate how they, as 

opposed to the general voting population, will feel its effects.” 122 F. Supp.2d at 717, 

quoting Warth, supra, 422 U.S. at 501. The Court also ruled that plaintiffs lacked 

standing based on harm to non-defendant candidates, recognizing that none of the cases 

“established standing for voters to vindicate the interests of candidates for public office.” 

Id. “Because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a specific and individualized injury 

from the pending alleged violation of the Twelfth Amendment and are unable to show 
DMEAST #10118497 v3 5

personal injury through harm done to non-defendant candidates, the court holds that they 

do not have standing under Article III to bring this suit.” Id. at 717-18. 

More recently, in Hollander v. McCain, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H. 

2008), a voter sued Senator John McCain and the Republican National Committee, 

alleging that, because Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, he is not a 

“natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible to hold the office of President. The 

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked 

standing. The Court ruled that the plaintiff “does not have standing based on the harm he 

would suffer should McCain be elected President despite his alleged lack of eligibility 

under Art. II, §1, cl. 4. That harm, ‘standing alone, would adversely affect only the 

generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.’” 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

at *12, quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 217 

(1974). 

Like Mr. Berg, the plaintiff in Hollander also contended that he would be 

disenfranchised if he voted for Senator McCain in the general election and Senator 

McCain were subsequently removed due to lack of ineligibility. This theory, the Court 

held, “does not establish [plaintiff’s] standing because it does not ‘allege personal injury 

fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct,’ . . . but to the conduct of 

those—whoever they might turn out to be—responsible for ultimately ousting McCain 

from office. Indeed, McCain and the RNC are trying to achieve the opposite.” Id. at *18, 

quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). The court concluded that: “This is not 

to demean the sincerity of Hollander’s challenge to McCain’s eligibility for the 
DMEAST #10118497 v3 6

presidency; . . . What is settled, however, is that an individual voter like Hollander lacks 

standing to raise that challenge in the federal courts.” Id. at *21. 

Like the plaintiffs in Jones and Hollander, Mr. Berg manifestly lacks standing to 

assert his claim regarding the eligibility of Senator Obama to serve as President. 

Accordingly, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over that claim. 

C. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be 

Granted 

In any event, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

because it fails to establish a cause of action. Mr. Berg cites the Declaratory Judgment 

Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201, Cmplt. ¶8, but that Act “has only a procedural effect. Although it 

enlarges the range of remedies available in federal courts, it does not create subject 

matter jurisdiction. Thus, a court must find an independent basis for jurisdiction . . . .” 

Mack Trucks, Inc., v. Int’l Union, UAW, 856 F.2d 579, 583 (3d Cir. 1988). Mr. Berg also 

claims that the case “presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under 

Article II of the Constitution.” Cmplt. ¶7. There is no federal cause of action under or 

created by Article II of the Constitution, however. See, e.g., Catholic Charities CYO v. 

Chertoff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62732 (N.D. Cal. 2007). 

For these reasons, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. 
DMEAST #10118497 v3 7

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, defendants Democratic National Committee and 

Senator Obama’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure 

to state a claim should be granted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 24, 2008 /s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr. 

John P. Lavelle, Jr. 

Attorney I.D. PA 54279 

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & 

INGERSOLL, LLP 

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

(215) 864-8603 

(215) 864-9125 (Fax) 

lavellej@ballardspahr.com 

Of Counsel: 

Joseph E. Sandler 

SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC 

300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102 

Washington, D.C. 20003 

Telephone: (202) 479-1111 

Fax: (202) 479-1115 

sandler@sandlerreiff.com 

Robert F. Bauer 

General Counsel, Obama for America 

PERKINS COIE 

607 Fourteenth Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005-2003 

Telephone: 202.628.6600 

Facsimile: 202.434.1690 

RBauer@perkinscoie.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Senator Barack Obama and the 

Democratic National Committee 
DMEAST #10118497 v3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this day, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant 

Democratic National Committee’s and Defendant Senator Barack Obama’s Motion to 

Dismiss was served by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: 

Philip J. Berg, Esquire 

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 

Lafayette Hill, PA 09867 

Plaintiff 

Dated: September 24, 2008 /s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr. 

John P. Lavelle, Jr. 
DMEAST #10118497 v3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

PHILIP J. BERG, : 

: 

Plaintiff : 

: 

v. : Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS 

: 

BARACK OBAMA, et al., : 

: 

Defendants : 

 : 

ORDER

AND NOW, this ______ day of _______________, 2008, upon consideration of 

Defendant Democratic National Committee’s and Defendant Senator Barack Obama’s 

Motion to Dismiss, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED. 

J.