Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 3 of 29.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT
32. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this is a civil case arising under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1965, Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and Declaratory Judgment Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2201, and has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because all claims herein form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the matter in controversy well exceeds $75,000 in value and is between citizens of different states.
33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that jurisdiction over Samuel Altman is proper because he is domiciled in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that jurisdiction over Gregory Brockman is proper because he is domiciled in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
35. Jurisdiction over OpenAI, Inc. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
36. Jurisdiction over OpenAI, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
37. Jurisdiction over OpenAI, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
38. Jurisdiction over OpenAI GP, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
39. Jurisdiction over OpenAI OpCo, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
40. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Global, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
41. Jurisdiction over OAI Corporation, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
42. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Holdings, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
43. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Investment LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
44. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
45. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
46. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
47. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP I, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
48. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP II, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
49. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP III, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
50. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP IV, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
51. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV I, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
52. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV II, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
53. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV III, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
54. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV IV, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
55. Jurisdiction over Aestas Management Company, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
56. Jurisdiction over Aestas, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
57. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because all Defendants are residents of the State of California and at least one of the Defendants is a resident of this District, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District.
58. This action is properly assigned to the San Francisco Division of this District under Civil Local Rule 3-2(c) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred, and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, in San Francisco County, which is served by the San Francisco Division.
About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.
