Why the OpenAI Lawsuit Should Be Dismissed: A Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

Federal courts “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Article III “limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 (2007). If a plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring a suit, the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the suit must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2004).

Moreover, where a complaint fails to disclose the identities of anonymous plaintiffs, in violation of Rule 10(a)’s requirement that the complaint “name all parties,” dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate. Roe v. San Jose Unified Sch. Dist. Bd., No. 20-CV-02798-LHK, 2021 WL 292035, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021).

Once a defendant has moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction. See Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).