Michael J. Holmes v. Kading Briggs, LLP

I. Discussion

21 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that in a pending lawsuit 22 against Defendants’ clients in Los Angeles Superior Court, 23 Defendants “have continuously provided the Plaintiff objections to 24 the Plaintiffs [sic] discovery request that were not responses 25 given by their client.” The Complaint also alleges that Defendants 26 refused to accede to Plaintiff’s requests for a change in certain 27 28 deposition dates.* The Civil Cover Sheet, filed alongside 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint, indicates a cause of action under 42 C.F.R. 31 $ 93.103, related to Defendants’ alleged filing of fabricated documents in state court. (Dkt. 1-2 at 1.) 5 Defendant now moves to dismiss this case for lack of Jurisdiction. A motion under Rule 12(b) (1) may challenge the 7 court’s jurisdiction facially, based on the legal sufficiency of the claim, or factually, based on the legal sufficiency of the jurisdictional facts. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 2 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice 12.30[4], at 12-38 to 12-41 (3d ed.1999)). Where …