Remexcel, et al v. Arlequin, et al

Filing 920091001

Opinion

Download PDF
var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase() var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) ) var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 ) var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) ) var floatwnd = 0 var WPFootnote1 = ' Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.\ ' var WPFootnote2 = '  The district court also determined that, unlike his company\ Remexcel, plaintiff Ramírez lacked standing to bring suit. We\ accepted the dismissal of Ramírez\'s claims because he did not\ contest that ruling. Id. at 22.\ ' var WPFootnote3 = '  28 U.S.C. § 1927 reads: "Any attorney . . . who so\ multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously\ may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess\ costs, expenses, and attorneys\' fees reasonably incurred because of\ such conduct." \ ' var WPFootnote4 = '  The standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss is the same\ as that for a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See, e.g.,\ Citibank Global Markets, Inc., v. Rodríguez Santana, et al., 573\ F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 2009) ("to survive a motion to dismiss (or a\ motion for judgment on the pleadings), the complaint must plead\ facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level.");\ see also Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, 5 Federal\ Practice and Procedure § 1203 ("[T]he form and sufficiency of a\ statement of a claim for relief under Rule 8(a)(2) may be tested by\ a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief\ can be granted, Rule 12(b)(6), [or] by a motion for judgment on the\ pleadings, Rule 12(c) . . . .").\ ' var WPFootnote5 = '  The defendants never filed such a petition.\ ' var WPFootnote6 = ' The district court recognized this principle, writing, for\ example, that "[t]he production of said evidence might lead to\ circumstantial evidence in support of Plaintiff\'s case." In\ support of that conclusion, the court cited our decision in\ Pueguero-Moronta v. Gabriel Santiago, 464 F.3d 29, 45 (1st Cir.\ 2006), for the proposition that "[a] plaintiff bringing a political\ discrimination claim bears the burden of producing sufficient\ direct or circumstantial evidence from which a jury reasonably may\ infer that [his] constitutionally protected conduct -- in this\ case, political affiliation . . . was a substantial or motivating\ factor behind [his] dismissal." (Emphasis added, other\ modifications in original.)\ ' var WPFootnote7 = '  The district court admonished the defendants for raising\ this argument so late in the game -- Twombly had been decided ten\ months before the defendants moved for re-evaluation of the\ pleadings in light of that case. Furthermore, Twombly had already\ been decided when the district court entered the default judgment. \ Nevertheless, because the district court reached the arguments on\ the merits, we do as well.\ ' function WPShow( WPid, WPtext ) { if( bInlineFloats ) eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" ); else { if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed ) floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" ); floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" ); floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" ); floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" ); floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" ); floatwnd.document.write( WPtext ); floatwnd.document.write( 'Close'); floatwnd.document.write( "

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?