United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS;
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE RE: DKT. NOS. 17,
J. DAVILA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Steve D. Castro (“Plaintiff”) filed a three-page
“Employment Discrimination Complaint” on November
30, 2015, against Defendants G.L.R. Construction, Silicon
Valley Crane, Inc., Joe O. Alexander Builder, Inc. and Andrew
Shin Law Firm, through which Plaintiff purportedly asserts
claims for employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dkt. No. 1. Two of the
defendants, Silicon Valley Crane and Andrew Shin Law Firm,
move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. Nos. 17, 19. Silicon Valley
Crane also moves for a more definite statement pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), and Andrew Shin Law
Firm has filed a motion to strike two proclaimed amended
complaints filed by Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 36. For his part,
Plaintiff filed a document on February 17, 2016, which the
court has construed as his opposition to the dismissal
motions. Dkt. No. 30.
jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-5. These matters are suitable for
decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for July 7, 2016,
is VACATED. Because Plaintiff’s complaint is
inconsistent with the pleading standard that applies to civil
cases, the motions to dismiss must be granted. The motion to
strike will also be granted because the two amended
complaints were not properly filed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead
each claim with sufficient specificity to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations
omitted). The factual allegations “must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level”
such that the claim “is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 556-57. A complaint that falls short of the
Rule 8(a) standard may be dismissed if it fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate
only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or
sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.”
Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d
1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).
deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the court must
generally accept as true all “well-pleaded factual
allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
664 (2009). The court must also construe the alleged facts in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United
States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1988). However,
“courts are not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
the court generally does not consider any material beyond the
pleadings for a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis. Hal Roach
Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d
1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1990). Exceptions to this rule
include material submitted as part of the complaint or relied
upon in the complaint, and material subject to judicial
notice. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
668, 688-69 (9th Cir. 2001).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15
to pleadings are primarily governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15. Under Rule 15(a)(1), a party “may amend
its pleading once as a matter of course” within 21 days
after that pleading is served, or 21 days after service of a
responsive pleading or motion under Rule 12. “In all
other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s
leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
law is clear that district courts have the inherent power to
control their docket, and in the exercise of that power, they
may properly strike improper documents.” Zepeda v.
Paypal, Inc., No. C 10-2500 SBA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
69297, at *12-13, 2013 WL 2147410 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2013).
Plaintiff Failed to Satisfy the ...