Deshay D. Ford v. Tri-Counties Regional Centers

Filing 40

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Case and/or Strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under FRCP Sections 10(b) and 41(b) 31 . (See attached Minute Order for further information). (jp)

O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 09-3340 AHM (AJWx) FORD v. TRI-COUNTIES REGIONAL CENTERS Date November 19, 2009

Present: The Honorable Stephen Montes Deputy Clerk

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

The Court DENIES Defendant's motion1 to dismiss and/or strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Sections 10(b) and 41(b) for the following reasons.2 Defendant bases its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint solely on the grounds that Plaintiff did not precisely follow the letter of the Court's September 18, 2009 Order requiring him to set forth his factual allegations in numbered paragraphs and separate each cause of action into its own labeled heading. Defendant does not make any substantive arguments that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim or even that Defendant is unable to respond to the pleading as set forth. Defendant's arguments do not warrant dismissal of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has obeyed the spirit of the Court's September 18, 2009 Order, even if not the exact letter. Plaintiff culled his 22-page, rambling Complaint involving the alleged violation of rights of a number of individuals (not just himself) down to a twopage Amended Complaint that clearly states that his claims are for a failure to promote him on the basis of race that he alleges violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He specifies the dates of the alleged violations, so Defendant is on notice for statute of limitations

1

Docket No. 31.

Although Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to Defendant's motion, the Court declines to grant the motion on that basis because it is clear that the motion is defective on its merits.
2

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 09-3340 AHM (AJWx) FORD v. TRI-COUNTIES REGIONAL CENTERS Date November 19, 2009

purposes. The Complaint puts the Defendant on notice of the claims and facts supporting them and is sufficient for it to prepare a responsive pleading. Moreover, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is, therefore, entitled to have his complaint in this case construed liberally. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss or strike the Amended Complaint is denied. No hearing is necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. R. 7-15.
: Initials of Preparer SMO

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2