Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 42 Filed 08/04/25 Page 8 of 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
NGCB ordered CDNA to “immediately cease and desist” offering its Sports Event Contracts in Nevada. Compl. ¶ 71; Compl. Ex. A, at 2; Answer ¶ 71. The order threatened that the NGCB would “pursue criminal and civil actions based on [CDNA’s] past and future conduct within the state.” Compl. ¶ 71; Compl. Ex. A, at 2; Answer ¶ 71. In response, counsel for CDNA emailed Nevada Deputy Attorney General John Michela requesting a time to discuss the cease-and-desist order and asking “how the Board intend[ed] to proceed in light of the federal injunction issued in the case involving Kalshi.” Compl. ¶ 74; Compl. Ex. B, at 2; Answer ¶ 74. In response, Mr. Michela declined a discussion on behalf of his client by asserting that any response from CDNA to the cease-and-desist order “should be submitted to Board Chairman Kirk Hendrick in writing.” Compl. ¶ 74; Compl. Ex. B, at 1; Answer ¶ 74. Faced with the imminent threat of enforcement and the express threat of civil and criminal penalties, CDNA filed suit on June 3, 2025. ECF No. 1. The NGCB again refused to stay its hand for any enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, two days later, CDNA moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing Nevada law against the Sports Event Contracts traded on CDNA. ECF No. 15. On July 14, 2025, Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint. ECF No. 38. ARGUMENT CDNA is entitled to judgment on the pleadings because all facts material to a finding of preemption and grant of the requested declaratory and injunctive relief are established on the pleadings or by judicial notice. Judgment on the pleadings is proper when “no issue of material fact remains,” and the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Doleman v. Meiji Mut. Life Ins. Co ., 727 F.2d 1480, 1482 (9th Cir. 1984); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). For purposes of this motion, the allegations of the non-moving party are accepted as true, while the allegations of the moving party that Defendants have expressly denied are treated as false. See MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle , 457 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 2006). In resolving a Rule 12(c) motion, the Court may consider judicially noticeable facts as well as “‘material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint’ or incorporated by reference into the complaint.” Body Xchange Sports
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs