Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
12
25 ///
1 The parties appeared before the Court on June 20, 2018, and
8 challenged state laws. ECF No. 193. The Court concluded the
14 private employers.
18
19 I. OPINION
20 A. Legal Standard
21 Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule
26 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011). “Dismissal can be based on
27 the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of
1 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
2 1988).
8 notion that federal law preempts that new requirement and that
14 Court does not find any indication in the cited federal statutes
25 public. Id. at 17–18. Finally, the Court finds that the minimal
26 burden the reviews place on the facilities does not violate the
27 intergovernmental immunity doctrine. Id. at 19.
15 60. Suffice it to say, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated
5 Opp’n at 8.
17 dismissed.
18 E. Senate Bill 54
5 the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court also finds that the
6 INA does not preempt SB 54. Id. at 42–55. Finally, the Court
14 F. Leave to Amend
20 Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d
21 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990).
26 litigated these issues over the past several months. The Court
27 finds new allegations will not cure the deficiencies in
2 II. ORDER
12 later than July 31, 2018. The parties should specifically address
13 how they anticipate the case will proceed in this Court and
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7