Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title: Donald Schaeffer v. County of Orange; Trent Hoffman

July 6, 2011

TITLE: DONALD SCHAEFFER
v.
COUNTY OF ORANGE; TRENT HOFFMAN, ET AL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Julie Barrera Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for More Definite Statement (Docket 16). The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After considering the moving, opposing, and replying papers, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff Donald Schaeffer ("Plaintiff") filed his Complaint on March 2, 2011 (Dkt. 1) and subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 10, 2011 (Dkt. 13) against Defendants County of Orange and Deputy Trent Hoffman ("Hoffman).

Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to unreasonable force by Hoffman on February 12, 2010 in Stanton, California. He alleges that Hoffman discharged his firearm at Plaintiff, even though Plaintiff was unarmed and posed no imminent threat. FAC ¶¶ 16-17. As a result of the shooting, Plaintiff suffered serious physical injury, including amputation of his leg, removal of his spleen, and removal of a lung. Id. at ¶ 16.

The FAC asserts causes of action for: (1) unreasonable search and seizure and due process violation through excessive force and denial of medical treatment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983"); (2) municipal liability for unconstitutional custom or policy pursuant to § 1983; (3) battery; (4) negligence; and (5) violation of Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7*fn1 . Defendants bring the present Motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim and for a more definite statement.

II. Legal Standard

A. Motion to Dismiss

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed when a plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Once it has adequately stated a claim, a plaintiff may support the allegations in its complaint with any set of facts consistent with those allegations. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007); see Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that a complaint should be dismissed only when it lacks a "cognizable legal theory" or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory). Dismissal for failure to state a claim does not require the appearance, beyond a doubt, that the plaintiff can ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.