Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 42 Filed 08/04/25 Page 19 of 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Complaint, Compl. Ex. C, the authenticity of which Defendants have not disputed. See Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg , 593 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010) (documents are incorporated by reference “where the complaint necessarily relies upon” them or the contents are alleged in the complaint and there is no dispute of the documents’ authenticity or relevance); Compl. Ex. C. Like CDNA’s DCM status, its Sports Event Contracts certification is a matter of public record. Certification Filing, supra note 2. In addition, the Sports Event Contracts “evidence—by their very existence—the CFTC’s exercise of its discretion and implicit decision to permit them.” Kalshi v. Flaherty , 2025 WL 1218313, at *6. This Court should strike under Rule 12(f), deem admitted, or otherwise disregard Defendants’ denials claiming lack of knowledge sufficient to confirm that CDNA is a DCM on which Sports Events Contracts are listed. Had they conducted one, the “reasonable” inquiry required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 would have supplied Defendants with a sufficient basis to admit to CDNA’s registration as a DCM and self-certification of its Sports Event Contracts. See CFTC Filings, supra note 1; Certification Filing, supra note 2; Compl. Ex. C. Under these circumstances, the Court should deem the allegations of the Complaint as to these facts admitted. See Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Chaparral Contracting, Inc. , 2010 WL 2803016, at *2–3 (D. Nev. July 12, 2010) (deeming admitted a total of seventeen implausible denials for lack of knowledge and information in defendant’s answer). B. CDNA Will Experience Irreparable Harm Absent Injunctive Relief. The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have made clear that a credible threat of imminent prosecution under a state law that is preempted by federal law demonstrates irreparable harm. See Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. , 504 U.S. 374, 381–82 (1992) (“When enforcement actions are imminent . . . there is no adequate remedy at law. . . . [T]he [imminent] prospect of state suit . . . supplies the necessary irreparable injury.”); Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting , 732 F.3d 1006, 1029 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding a “credible threat of prosecution” under an allegedly preempted state statute supported finding of irreparable harm). “[T]he deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Melendres v. Arpaio , 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Elrod v. Burns , 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). Defendants have threatened to
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
19
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs