Jurisdiction pleading

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly the First and
Fourteenth Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
5. This Court has original jurisdiction over these federal claims pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
6. The Court has authority to grant the requested declaratory judgment pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, and to issue the requested
Case 3:16-cv-00041-SDD-EWD Document 1 01/20/16 Page 2 of 19
3
injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The
Court is authorized to award attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
7. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the instant claim
occurred within this District and because at least one Defendant resides in this District.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the action arises under and is brought under the
Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they are so related to
the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article
III of the United States Constitution.
11.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because at
least one Defendant resides in this judicial district. This District also is an
appropriate venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because all or at
least a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted
herein occurred in this judicial district.

3. JURISDICTION: This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Title 28
U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(3) in that the controversy arises under the United States Constitution
and
under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202. This Court has authority to award
attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental
jurisdiction
of this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) to hear and adjudicate state law claims. Each and all of
the
acts (or threats of acts) alleged herein were done by defendants, or their officers, agents, and
employees, under color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages
of

III. JURISDICTION
27. This is an action brought against a state agency and a private hospital
working as an agent of the state. It is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
United States Constitution and state statutory and common law.
28. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1343. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state
law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper in this District
pursuant to the general venue provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1391. All parties reside
and the Plaintiffs’ claims arose within the district.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and this Court has
federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Article III of the Constitution
and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
23. The FTC Act contains no waiver of sovereign immunity by North Carolina or any other
state, as is unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.
24. Without waiving its sovereign immunity under the Tenth Amendment, the State Board
seeks immediate judicial determination of the FTC's lack of jurisdiction as to the FTC
administrative proceeding and of its violation of the following provisions of the U.S.
Constitution: Article I, Section 8 (the Commerce Clause); the Tenth Amendment; Article
III, Section 2, Clause 2 (original jurisdiction over actions against states); and the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This action is brought pursuant to the federal
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 (Creation of Remedy), 2202 (Further
Relief); 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (Writs); the implied non-statutory review procedure provided
by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (Action to Compel an Officer
of thU.S.C. § 500 et seq. Absent this immediate judicial determination of jurisdiction, the
Commission's actions will wholly deprive the State Board and, thus, the State of a
meaningful and adequate means of vindicating its constitutional rights, as discussed
herein. Due to such violations of Constitutional rights, the State Board and, thus, the
State has suffered and continues to suffer immediate, permanent, and irreparable harm.
25. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of North Carolina under 5 U.S.C. § 703 and 28
U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3) because the State Board is located at 507 Airport Boulevard, Suite
105, in Morrisville, Wake County, North Carolina. e United States to Perform His Duty); and the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

3. Jurisdiction is proper in this court because this litigation arises under federal law,
namely 17 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (Lanham Act). The Court has jurisdiction over this action under
28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (trademarks), and 28 U.S.C. § 2201
(Declaratory Judgment Act).
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over American Blind because American
Blind, on information and belief, conducts business in the State of California and within this
district, including contracts with California corporations and the advertising and sale of its
products through the Internet to California residents.
5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1391(c).
6. An actual case or controversy has arisen between the parties. American Blind has
threatened litigation against Google, and has asserted that Google’s sale of keyword-triggered

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8 1. This case presents a federal question arising under 42
U.S.C. 9 §1983 and the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses of the Constitution of the 10 United
States. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 11 §§1331 and 1343(a)(3). 12
2. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) 13 because the Defendant,
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, 14 maintains an office within the Eastern District
of Californi

II. JURISDICTION
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees.
2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 in that these
matters arise out of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988.
3. The supplemental jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The
supplemental matters arise out of Article I, §§ 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 21, and 23, and Article X, § 6 of
the Constitution of the State of Florida.
4. Venue in this Court is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) as the ordinance about
which the Plaintiff complains and from which Plaintiff seeks relief has been enacted and will be
enforced within this judicial district.
III.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question
jurisdiction); 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (FLSA), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights). Declaratory and
injunctive relief are sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.
3
2. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims asserted herein
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate because Plaintiffs’ state
law claims under the THRA, T.C.A. §4-21-101 et seq., and state tort law share a common
nucleus of operative fact with Plaintiffs’ federal claims.