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.

Davis v. Adler

United States District Court, S.D. California

April 26, 2017

GAVIN B. DAVIS, Plaintiff,



         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jason Adler's (“Defendant Adler”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Gavin Davis's (“Plaintiff”) Complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 8.) Having reviewed the parties' arguments and controlling legal authority and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1., the Court finds the matter suitable for decision on the papers and without oral argument. Accordingly, the motion hearing date set for April 27, 2017, is vacated. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court GRANTS Defendant Adler's motion to dismiss.


         The following facts are taken from the Complaint and construed as true for the limited purpose of resolving the pending motion. See Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982, 984 (9th Cir. 1994).

         On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against Defendants Jason Adler, Odessa Jorgensen, and Jane Doe Defendants (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts several causes of action that stem from several different events. (See generally id.)

         One of the events occurred in March of 2015, when Plaintiff requested that Defendant Adler stop using his name as a character in Defendant Adler's “script.”[1] (Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff states that Defendant Adler creates “mixed media.” (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff's Complaint also points to an incident where Defendant Adler allegedly provided false and misleading information to the authorities including the San Diego District Attorney, and San Diego Police Department, which resulted in Plaintiff being illegally detained. (Id. ¶ 36.) On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjugated to a pre-trial detention where he was held without bail for approximately sixty minutes. (Id. ¶ 37.) On October 20, 2016, Plaintiff contends that he was assaulted at the San Diego central jail. (Id.)

         In addition, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Adler developed, maintained, and intended to commercialize a hate crime website on Facebook titled “I am a Fan of Gavin Davis R.I.P.” (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that this website is an illegal trespass on his information, that he has been regularly harassed, and that Defendant Adler is attempting to profit from collecting information about him and posting it to this website. (Id. ¶ 7.)

         In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a litany of violations including cyberstalking, violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, harassment, and copyright violations. (See generally, Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff requests damages for medical expenses, lost earnings and profits, loss of earning capacity, and exemplary damage if sought. (Id. at 25.)

         On March 21, 2017, Defendant Adler, proceeding pro se, filed the present motion, his motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff opposed the motion on March 30, 2017, and Defendant Adler replied on April 13, 2017. (Doc. Nos. 8, 13.)


         A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's complaint and allows a court to dismiss a complaint upon a finding that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law for (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim.” SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). However, a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In making this determination, a court reviews the contents of the complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007).

         Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court need not accept “legal conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). It is also improper for a court to assume “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).


         Defendant Adler argues that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed as it fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Doc. No. 3 at 5.)[2] Plaintiff retorts and claims that Defendant Adler does not address any of his allegations contained in the ...

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.