CB v. SONORA SCHOOL DIST.
Decision Date | 08 March 2010 |
Docket Number | No. CV-F-09-285 OWW/DLB.,CV-F-09-285 OWW/DLB. |
Citation | 691 F. Supp.2d 1170 |
Parties | C.B., a minor, Plaintiff, v. SONORA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
John F. Martin, Law Offices of John F. Martin A Professional Corporation, Christine Ann Hopkins, Law Offices of John F. Martin, Walnut Creek, CA, for Plaintiff.
Jason M. Sherman, Alesa M. Schachter, Johnson Schachter & Lewis Sacramento, CA, Cornelius John Callahan, Borton Petrini, LLP, Modesto, CA, for Defendants.
Before the Court is the motion of Defendants City of Sonora, Chief of Police Mace McIntosh and Officer Hal Prock's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and for a more definite statement.1
Plaintiff filed the FAC pursuant to the Memorandum Decision filed on September 22, 2009, 691 F.Supp.2d 1123 (E.D.Cal. 2009) ("September 22 Memorandum Decision"). As "Facts Common to All Causes of Action," the FAC alleges:
The FAC alleges causes of action for false imprisonment (Second Cause of Action), battery (Third Cause of Action), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Fourth Cause of Action), excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Eighth Cause of Action), and Monell liability (Ninth Cause of Action).
Defendants move to dismiss these causes of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, Defendants move for a more definite statement.
A. MOTION TO DISMISS.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir.2001). Dismissal is warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or where the complaint presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead essential facts under that theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir.1984). In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and must construe all inferences from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir.2002). However, legal conclusions need not be taken as true merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir.2003). "A district court should grant a motion to dismiss if plaintiffs have not pled `enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Williams ex rel. Tabiu v. Gerber Products Co., 523 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "`Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" Id. "While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the `grounds' of his `entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic, id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Apothio, LLC v. Kern Cnty.
...a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement lies within the wide discretion of the district court." C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist. , 691 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1191 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1377 (2d. ed.) ).IV. ANALYSISA. Causation and Rule 8 Compliance" Fe......
-
Winters v. Jordan
...sufficient notice, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding."); C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist., 691 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1191 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ("A Rule 12(e) motion is proper only if the complaint is soindefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the n......
-
Apothio, LLC v. Kern Cnty.
...are not due to the shotgun pleading. Any remaining lack of clarity can be ascertained through the discovery process. See C.B., 691 F.Supp.2d at 1191 (“The Court may also deny the motion if the sought by a motion for more definite statement is obtainable through discovery.”); Famalore, Inc. ......
-
Conerly v. Tarpin
...notice, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding."); C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist., 691 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1190-91 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ("A Rule 12(e) motion is proper only if the complaint is so indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature o......