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.

Mosby v. San Diego County Admin Center

United States District Court, S.D. California

January 6, 2020

MAURICE MOSBY, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY ADMIN CENTER; SAN DIEGO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Hon. William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge

         The matter pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration (erroneously sued as San Diego Social Security Administration). (ECF No. 6).

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff Maurice Mosby Jr., commenced this action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, assigned case number 37-2019-00038019-SC-SC-CTL, against Defendants San Diego County Admin Center and San Diego Social Security Administration. (ECF No. 1-2). On September 23, 2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (ECF No. 1).

         On November 21, 2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 6). On December 5, 2019, Defendant County of San Diego (erroneously sued as San Diego County Admin Center) filed a Notice of Joinder to join in Defendant Social Security Administration's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 7). On December 13, 2019, Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration filed supplemental documents. (ECF No. 8). The record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed a Response in Opposition.

         ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff claims that Defendants owe him $1.00 for “service apart of joint case against San Diego Admin Building.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 3).

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to move for dismissal on grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action. Assoc. of Medical Colleges v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778-779 (9th Cir. 2000). In resolving an attack on a court's jurisdiction, the court may go outside the pleadings and consider evidence beyond the complaint relating to jurisdiction without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Safe Air For Everyone v. Doyle, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “A district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). “All allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002).

         “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)). When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all “well-pleaded factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). However, a court is not “required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden St. Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         DISCUSSION

         Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration contends that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed on the grounds that it fails to state a claim. Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration contends that Plaintiff's Complaint “makes a simple formulaic demand for relief and includes vague statements devoid of factual support.” (ECF No. 6 at 4). The Court finds that the allegations of the Complaint against Defendants U.S. Social Security Administration and County of San Diego “are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680-81. Plaintiff fails to allege facts to state a ...


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.