Motors Limited v. Consumers Union of United States, 12 F.Supp.2d 1035, 1047 (C.D.Cal.1998) (special pleading required). 22 . Aside from the conclusory allegation that Defendants continue to have claims for unfair/unlawful business practices and/or unfair competition, Defendants provide no explánation for the basis for these claims. Nor do they cite any authority supporting their continuing viability. The Court can only presume, based on their presentation in the same sentence as the allegedly viable federal cancellation claim, that they are premised on the same "fraudulent” conduct. See Amended Opposition at 2. In any case, Defendants fail to state a claim. 23 . See, e.g., Lafayette Morehouse, Inc., v. Chronicle Publishing Company, 37 Cal. App.4th 855, 863, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 46 (1995) (<HOLDING>) 24 . In the First Amended Counterclaim,
holding that the official charged with responsibility to act must be an official within the doj with the authority to act in the circumstances holding that reporting requirements that are afforded immunity under  419 are not predicated on actual or conclusive evidence of abuse or maltreatment holding that component parts of an article are not directly competitive with the imported articles holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity holding that newspaper articles reporting on official proceedings are writings made in connection with an issue under consideration or review 