The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER (1) GRANTING FREDDIE MAC'S MOTION TO DISMISS; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR ECF ACCESS AND TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; AND (3) REMANDING THE CASE TO STATE COURT [Re: Docket Nos. 14, 29, 31]
Plaintiff David Snyder originally filed this action in Santa Cruz County Superior Court 18 against numerous defendants alleging a variety of claims related to an unlawful detainer action 19 against him. Snyder was the tenant and lessee of a residence originally owned by defendant Wayne 20 Greene. Greene defaulted and the house was sold in a foreclosure sale to defendant Freddie Mac. 21
Freddie Mac initiated an unlawful detainer action against Snyder, and was represented by 22 defendants Malcolm & Cisneros and Melissa Sgroi. Snyder then sued Greene, Freddie Mac, 23 Malcolm & Cisneros, Sgroi, as well as several others: (1) Bailey Properties, which managed the 24 subject property during parts of Snyder's tenancy; (2) Gene Harding, who worked for Bailey 25 Properties; and (3) a variety of Greene's acquaintances, who allegedly harassed Snyder, but who are 26 no longer parties to this action. 27 Freddie Mac, Malcolm & Sgroi ("M&C") and Melissa Sgroi moved to dismiss the complaint for 3 failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, which this court granted on March 2, 4 Greene, Bailey Properties, and Gene Harding. Dkt. No. 13 ("FAC"). Greene, Harding, and Bailey 6 Dismiss"). Snyder did not file any opposition to the motion to dismiss. This court held a hearing on 8 the motion on May 29. Snyder appeared and explained that he was seeking new counsel and 9 intended to oppose the motion. The court gave Snyder an extension of time to file an opposition, 10 with or without new counsel. That deadline, June 12, 2012, passed without any filing by Snyder. On June 14, Snyder filed a request for access to the court's electronic filing system. Dkt. No. 29. On June 18, he filed a motion for leave to amend the FAC, or, in the alternative, to dismiss Freddie Mac 13 without prejudice. Dkt. No. 31.
Based on the moving papers, arguments presented at hearing, and all applicable authority, the court 16 rules as follows. 17
On motion, a court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The federal rules require that a complaint include a "short and plain statement" showing 20 the plaintiff is entitled to relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). The statement must "raise a right to relief 21 above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 55 (2007). However, only 22 plausible claims for relief with survive a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 23
The case is now before this court after its second removal from state court.*fn1 Defendants 2012. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, stating claims against Freddie Mac, Wayne 5 Properties have not appeared. Freddie Mac again moves to dismiss. Dkt. No. 14 ("Motion to 7 All parties have consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
S.Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A claim is plausible if its factual content "allows the 24 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 2 1949. A plaintiff does not have to provide detailed facts, but the pleading must include "more than 3 an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. at 1950. 4
Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). The factual 6 allegations pled in the complaint must be taken as true and reasonable inferences drawn from them 7 must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 8 Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987)). However, the court cannot assume that "the 10 California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). "Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of 13 fact, or unreasonable inferences." Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 14 2001) (citing Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994)),amended on 15 other grounds by 275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001). 16 15(a)(2). "'Four factors are commonly used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to 18 amend. These are: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of 19 amendment.'" Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). 20
Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). An amendment would be "futile" if there is no set of 22 facts can be proved which would constitute a valid claim or defense. See Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, 23
Plaintiff's FAC states three claims for relief: (1) breach of contract, against Wayne Greene; (2) constructive eviction, against Freddie Mac, Bailey Properties, and Harding; and (3) breach of the 27 implied warranty of habitability, ...