Facts

Tanesha Blye, Kimberly Alfriend, Robert Warner, Joel Joseph, Dennis Wiessner, Richard Hake, Dawn Bertucci,and the National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice filed a complaint against the California Supreme Court, challenging the court's inherent powers to admit attorneys to practice in California. Plaintiffs consisted of individuals who were admitted to active practice in another jurisdiction, and wished to practice law in California, but have not passed the California Bar Examination. At some point, the U.S. District Court issued a pre-filing order.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that they have otherwise met the requirements to practice in California, except for taking the California Bar Examination. Nonetheless, they contended that they should be entitled to apply for admission to the California Bar on motion. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief. They sought to invalidate California's "sister-state bar admission rules" and the California Bar for experienced attorneys under the privileges and immunities clause and right to travel, commerce clause, First Amendment, substantive due process, procedural due process, state law, civil rights, and declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant claimed it was immune from prosecution, shielding it from any suit. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to clarify the pre-filing order.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the operative complaint without leave to amend. Then, it denied defendant's motion to clarify and modify the pre-filing order as moot. In dismissing, the court found that most of plaintiffs' claims failed to meet the requirements of the pre-filing order. Further, the court ruled that those claims that did survive were subject to dismissal pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because defendants' sovereign immunity stripped the court of jurisdiction, absent a waiver of immunity. Accordingly, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as moot, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.