Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/17334518/Berg-v-Obama-20-OBAMA-Motion-to-Dismiss-Amended-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-01-16 12:07:11
Document Index: 166263204

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1983', '§431', '§552', '§1481', '§ 1983', '§1985', '§552']

Berg v. Obama - 20 OBAMA Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 2:08-cv-04083-RBSDocument 20
PHILIP J. BERG,
: : Plaintiff : : v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS : BARACK OBAMA, et al., : : Defendants : ____________________________________:
ORDER AND NOW, this ___ day of _____________, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, and of the submissions of the parties relating thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED. BY THE COURT:
____________________________________ Surrick, J.
DMEAST #10135871 v1
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PHILIP J. BERG, : : Plaintiff : : v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS : BARACK OBAMA, et al., : : Defendants : ____________________________________: MOTION OF DEFENDANTS DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND SENATOR BARACK OBAMA TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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 plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim asserted and that the First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, accompanying this Motion is a Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss and a proposed Order. Respectfully submitted,
/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 General Counsel, Democratic National Committee SANDLER, REIFF & YOUNG, P.C. 300 M Street, S.E. #1102 Washington, D.C. 20003 Telephone: (202) 479-1111 Fax: (202) 479-1115 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 Democratic National Committee
PHILIP J. BERG, Plaintiff v. BARACK OBAMA, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
On September 24, 2008, Defendants Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and Senator Barack Obama filed a motion to dismiss the original Complaint filed in this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On October 6, 2008, plaintiff Philip Berg filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, together with a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Complaint”). Assuming that no leave to amend is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) because defendants have not filed a responsive pleading,1 the First Amended Complaint should
A motion to dismiss does not constitute a responsive pleading for purposes of Rule 15(a). E.g., Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has nevertheless filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint rather than simply filing his proposed First Amended Complaint. Regardless of the procedural posture, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim, and must be
nevertheless be dismissed, on the same grounds. No amendment to the Complaint can possibly cure its fundamental defects. Not only are the allegations patently false, but plaintiff lacks standing and there is no federal cause of action for enforcement of Article II of the Constitution. Nor has plaintiff set forth, in the Amended Complaint, any other viable federal cause of action. I. The Amended Complaint The basis of plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is the same as that of his original complaint: the entirely false and baseless allegation that Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States is not a natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible to run for President. Amended Complaint ¶ 6, passim. Plaintiff has added four new defendants: the Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation; Pedro Cortes, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Chair of the U.S. Senate Commission on Rules and Administration. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 21 – 24. In addition to the causes of action included in the original complaint, the Amended Complaint purports to assert new causes of action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985 and 1986; the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as amended, 2 U.S.C. §§431 et seq.; the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552; and the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1481. dismissed. See Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir. 1993) (denial of leave to amend may be based on “futility of amendment”); Jablonski v. Pan American World Airways, 863 F.2d 289, 292 (3d Cir. 1988) (amendment is considered futile “if the amendment will not cure the deficiency in the original complaint or if the amended complaint cannot withstand a motion to dismiss”) citing Massarsky v. General Motors Corp., 706 F.2d 111, 125 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 937 (1983). 2
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. First, no amendment can cure the fundamental jurisdictional deficiency in the original complaint: plaintiff’s lack of standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for President of the United States. Regardless of what cause of action plaintiff might attempt to assert, plaintiff cannot possibly show any actual particularized injury to himself by reason of the alleged lack of qualifications of a candidate for President. Hollander v. McCain, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H. 2008); Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp.2d 713 (N.D. Tex.), aff’d w/o opinion, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000). Second, for the reasons stated in defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the original complaint, the Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action under Article II of the Constitution or the Declaratory Judgment Act. Third, none of the additional counts contained in the Amended Complaint sets forth any viable federal cause of action. With respect to Counts Two, Three and Four, invoking the Civil Rights Acts, it is clear that the Amended Complaint does not set out factual allegations sufficient to state a claim under sections 1983, 1985 or 1986. “‘To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.’” Harvey v. Plains Township Police Dep’t, 421 F.3d 185 (3d cir. 2005), quoting West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The Amended Complaint does not set forth any specific allegations that would show any
deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights by virtue of the DNC or Senator Obama exercising any state governmental authority. See Amended Complaint ¶¶91-108. The Complaint lacks any allegations of conspiracy sufficient to establish a cause of action under section 1985. See, e.g., Conroy v. City of Philadelphia, 421 F. Supp. 2d 879, 888 (E.D. Pa. 2006)(§1985 conspiracy claims “must be pled with some degree of specificity’). And section 1986 requires a predicate violation of section 1985. Id. As to Count Five of the Amended Complaint, there is no private right of action to enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act unless and until an administrative complaint has been filed with the Federal Election Commission and the FEC has disposed of or failed to act on that complaint. E.g., Perot v. Federal Election Comm’n, 97 F.3d 553, 557-58 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied sub nom Hagelin v. FEC, 520 U.S. 1210 (1997). Plaintiff does not allege that he has filed any administrative complaint with the FEC. As to Count Six, no cause of action can be asserted against the DNC or Senator Obama under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, as neither is a federal agency subject to the provisions of FOIA. And finally, with respect to Count Seven, there is no private right of action under the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other statute to have a federal court make a determination under that Act about a third person. For these reasons, the First Amended Complaint does not state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Respectfully submitted,
Of counsel: Joseph E. Sandler General Counsel, Democratic National Committee SANDLER, REIFF & YOUNG, P.C. 300 M Street, S.E. #1102 Washington, D.C. 20003 Telephone: (202) 479-1111 Fax: (202) 479-1115 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 Democratic National Committee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion of Defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof 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 19444-2531 Plaintiff
/s/ John P. Lavelle, Jr. John P. Lavelle, Jr.
More From This User83 - ORDER Denying Summary Judgment re Due Process-Granting as to Equal Protection-Granting in Part as to 1st Amendment90 - Defendants ANSWER to Amended Complaint79 - Plaintiffs Opposition to Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss Case-Substantive Due Process - 2-27-201077 - Defendants Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss Case-Substantive Due Process - 2-17-2010190 - Plaintiffs Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law - 6-21-2010202 - Plaintiffs Supplement to MOTION for Summary Judgment - 6-23-2010187 - Defendants Objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - 6-21-2010186 - Defendants Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law - 6-21-2010172 - Defendants Supplement to MOTION for Summary Judgment - 6-9-2010170 - ORDER Denying Motion for Summary Judgment re Standing167 - Plaintiffs Supplement Re Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment164 - Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - 4-26-2010166 - Defendants Supplement to MOTION for Summary Judgment - 5-3-2010162 - Defendants Response in Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment - 4-23-2010159 - Defendants Reply in Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment - 4-12-2010136 - Defendants MOTION for Summary Judgment - 3-29-2010100 - OrDER Denying Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and for Stay249 - Minutes -In Chambers- Order Granting Permanent Injunction = 10-12-2010236 - Plaintiffs Response of Plaintiff LCR to Defs Objections to Proposed Judgment & Permanent Injunction - 9-24-2010235 - Defendants Objections to REQUEST for Judgment and Permanent Injunction - 9-23-2010232 - Memorandum Opinion - 9-9-2010233 - Plaintiffs Request for Judgment and Permanent Injunction - 9-16-2010212 - Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment - 7-6-2010161 - Plaintiffs Supplement to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - 4-22-2010140 - Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
Berg v. Obama - 20 OBAMA Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint by tesibria534 viewsEmbedDownloadInterests: Types, Research, LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedGIBSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT - Document No. 11by Justia.comTarr v. Narconon: Reply in Support of Motion to Dismissby Tony OrtegaJohnston v. One America Productions, Inc. et al - Document No. 7by Justia.comGrace Solis v. Global Acceptance Credit Company, L.P., 11th Cir. (2015)by Scribd Government DocsGeisel v. Spurwink, CUMcv-09-454 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2010)by Chris BuckSTATE of FLORIDA, et al. v U.S. DHHS, et al. - 43 - MOTION to Extend Time to Respond to Amended Complaint - Gov.uscourts.flnd.57507.43.0by Jack RyanCivpro+Digests+Up+to+Rule+41by Valissa PoligBloom v. Clark Slapp Motionby mary engStephen Tapp v. the University of Texas Health Science Center - UTHealth Motion to Dismissby TexasLawArchiver1:14-cv-01180 #35by Equality Case FilesTAVELCROSS, S.A. v. LEARJET, INC. Docketby bombardierwatchOposa vs Factoran Summaryby Loi CaparidaWolf v. Petrock, 10th Cir. (2010)by Scribd Government DocsJoseph R. Armstrong, Sr. v. The Frostie Company, a New Jersey Corporation, 453 F.2d 914, 4th Cir. (1971)by Scribd Government DocsDP 16-25 Student vs. Delaware College Preparatory Academy Inc. Charter School and State of Delaware Department of Educationby KevinOhlandtPederson et al v. Pfuhl et al - Document No. 60by Justia.comAppeal Motion to Quash Service State Illinois 1133555_R23by sbhasin1Las Americas ASPIRA v. Christina School District- Motion to Expedite and for Status Quo Petitionby KevinOhlandtLujan v. Dreis, 10th Cir. (2011)by Scribd Government DocsGomersal St Mary's Complaints Policy 2013by Thomas PittsFirst Amended Complaint - Taitz v Obamaby xx444(PS) Easterly v. Department of the Army et al - Document No. 4by Justia.comDobson v. City of Denver, 10th Cir. (2001)by Scribd Government DocsValenzuela v. Scottsdale Healthcare, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)by Scribd Government DocsMcMurry v. Geico Indemnity Insurance Company et al - Document No. 4by Justia.comBrief in Support of MTD: Brown v. Texas A&Mby Staci ZaretskyMOTION TO STRIKE/DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - IMPROPER VERIFICATIONby winstons2311Joel D. Joseph v. Richard S. Bernstein, 11th Cir. (2015)by Scribd Government DocsSimilar to Berg v. Obama - 20 OBAMA Motion to Dismiss Amended ComplaintGIBSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT - Document No. 11Tarr v. NarcononJohnston v. One America Productions, Inc. et al - Document No. 7Grace Solis v. Global Acceptance Credit Company, L.P., 11th Cir. (2015)Geisel v. Spurwink, CUMcv-09-454 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2010)STATE of FLORIDA, et al. v U.S. DHHS, et al. - 43 - MOTION to Extend Time to Respond to Amended Complaint - Gov.uscourts.flnd.57507.43.0Civpro+Digests+Up+to+Rule+41Bloom v. Clark Slapp MotionStephen Tapp v. the University of Texas Health Science Center - UTHealth Motion to Dismiss1:14-cv-01180 #35TAVELCROSS, S.A. v. LEARJET, INC. DocketOposa vs Factoran SummaryWolf v. Petrock, 10th Cir. (2010)Joseph R. Armstrong, Sr. v. The Frostie Company, a New Jersey Corporation, 453 F.2d 914, 4th Cir. (1971)DP 16-25 Student vs. Delaware College Preparatory Academy Inc. Charter School and State of Delaware Department of EducationPederson et al v. Pfuhl et al - Document No. 60Appeal Motion to Quash Service State Illinois 1133555_R23Las Americas ASPIRA v. Christina School District- Motion to Expedite and for Status Quo PetitionLujan v. Dreis, 10th Cir. (2011)Gomersal St Mary's Complaints Policy 2013First Amended Complaint - Taitz v Obama(PS) Easterly v. Department of the Army et al - Document No. 4Dobson v. City of Denver, 10th Cir. (2001)Valenzuela v. Scottsdale Healthcare, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)McMurry v. Geico Indemnity Insurance Company et al - Document No. 4Brief in Support of MTDMOTION TO STRIKE/DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - IMPROPER VERIFICATIONJoel D. Joseph v. Richard S. Bernstein, 11th Cir. (2015)Plaintiffs v. CSX Transportation, Inc. and Union Tank Car Co.Page 71 ComplaintsBerg v. Obama - 20 OBAMA Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint