Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Emiliana Pirvu v. Yucca Valley Development Department

October 17, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justin L. Quackenbush Senior United States District Judge


Pro se Plaintiff, Emiliana Pirvu, has brought a rather unintelligible Complaint against a Department of the Town of Yucca Valley (the "Defendant" or "the Town"). Defendant responded to the Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss Or Alternatively, Strike Allegations from Complaint (ECF No. 9), which asks the court to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff has responded to the Motion by asking the court to decide her case "on its merits, rather than on technical or procedural grounds" (ECF No. 14 at 4) and requesting she be granted relief requiring the Town's "civil servants to stop abusing that office [and] to stop acting like communists." (ECF No. 14 at 7).


Plaintiff's Complaint alleges she purchased property located in the Town of Yucca Valley in a tract homes development on February 23, 2009. Plaintiffs claims in the Complaint arise from two primary concerns: first, Plaintiff's property line (specifically her front property line); and second, a retaining wall at Plaintiff's rear property line.

First, the Complaint alleges that the recorded description of the property Plaintiff purchased is "incorrect" and does not match the "actual" real property which she paid for. Plaintiff contends the recorded tract map shows her lot is 125 feet deep along a 60 foot wide street, but she claims the real property she purchased is 135 feet long along a 40 foot wide street. Plaintiff claims that when she purchased the property, she was deceived by the recorded description "of a clear street as the front line" of her property.

Upon purchasing the property, Plaintiff asserts she erected a fence at the street curb, which she believed was her front property line and claims that the fence was "approved" by the Town. Attached to the Complaint is a letter dated January 24, 2011 from the Town's Code Compliance Officer notifying Plaintiff that her white fence did not meet the five-foot setback required for zoning and was located within the street right of way. Also attached to the Complaint is a letter dated May 19, 2011, in which the Town advised the Plaintiff she could be fined if she did not relocate the fence fronting her property off the public right-of-way behind her existing property line.

Plaintiff contends the incorrect recorded description of the property describing a street as the front line of the property amounts to a fraud perpetrated on her. She also contends the Town is violating her civil rights, specifically her right to equal protection, because there are other properties with fences at the curb of the street. ECF No. 1 at 6, 11, 25.

Finally, Plaintiff's Complaint contends that her terraced development is dangerous and that her backyard and property floods due to water seeping from a common retaining wall which her neighboring landowner converted into a planter. Plaintiff attaches to her Complaint letters dated October 5, 2010 and November 5, 2010 to the Town, which describe her problem with the retaining wall and ask the Town to correct the integrity of the retaining wall. ECF No. 1 at 32-35. Also attached to the Complaint is a response from the Town dated March 13, 2011 advising Plaintiff that the retaining wall was inspected on multiple occasions by the Town, determined to be in compliance with Town standards, and that the matter was a "civil matter[] between property owners." ECF No. 1 at 49. Plaintiff claims the Town is violating a County Development Code concerning retaining walls. (ECF No. 1 at 28-29).

On June 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Town regarding the same dispute in San Bernardino County Superior Court. See ECF No. 10.


Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) mandates that a court dismiss a cause of action that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See North Star Int'l. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n., 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir.1983). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the Court will take all material allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir.1986).

The Court, however, is not required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). A formulaic recitation of a cause of action with conclusory allegations is not sufficient; a plaintiff must plead facts showing that a violation is plausible, not just possible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (emphasis added).

A court may also dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dept., 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir.2008). Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a plaintiff's complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "Prolix, confusing complaints" should be dismissed because "they impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges." McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.1996). Mindful of the fact that the Supreme Court has "instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the 'inartful pleading' of pro se litigants," Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.1987), the Court will view Plaintiff's pleadings with the appropriate degree of leniency.

"Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.... However, material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss." Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir.1990) (citations omitted). Similarly, "documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion todismiss" without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir.1994). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of "matters of public record." Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.1986). Otherwise, ...

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.