Delegates to the Republican National Convention et al v. Republican National Committee et al

Filing 52

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge David O. Carter Dismissing Case with Prejudice and Denying Defendants' Motion as Moot #48 . This Court DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). On August 23, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 48). The next day, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (Dkt. 49). Because the Court dismisses with prejudice, the Court DENIES AS MOOT that Motion. (See Order for further details) (db)

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 12-0927 DOC (JPRx)

Date: August 24, 2012

Title: DELEGATES TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION, ET AL. -VREPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL.

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
N/A
Court Reporter

Julie Barrera
Courtroom Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AS MOOT
This Court previously ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8,
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), or for violation of a court order pursuant to
Rule 41(b). See August 20, 2012, Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 46).
As the Court explained in that Order to Show Cause:
[T]he Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint because
the vast majority of the pleadings were unintelligible and Plaintiffs’
sole intelligible allegations failed to state a claim. In Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Complaint, they appear to have removed all factual
pleadings and instead request an impermissible advisory opinion from
this Court about the scope of the Voting Rights Act. U.S. Nat. Bank
of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993)
(“[A] federal court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions.”).
Plaintiffs’ six-page Response to the Order to Show Cause fails to identify a single
factual allegation in the Second Amended Complaint about a specific act done by a
specific defendant to a specific plaintiff that gives rise to a Voting Rights Act violation,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 12-0927 DOC (JPRx)

Date: August 24, 2012
Page 2

and this Court has found none. See Response (Dkt. 47). In addition, Plaintiffs cite no
authority other than one case identified by this Court in its Order to Show Cause. See id.
Accordingly, this Court DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint WITH
PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state
a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b).
See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008)
(explaining that a complaint that is so confusing that its “true substance, if any, is well
disguised” may be dismissed sua sponte for failure to satisfy Rule 8); Omar v. Sea-Land
Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua
sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671,
673 (9th Cir.1981) (“A complaint which fails to comply with [Rule 8] may be dismissed
with prejudice[.]”).
In addition, on August 23, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 48). The next day, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (Dkt. 49).
Because the Court dismisses with prejudice, the Court DENIES AS MOOT that Motion.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of this minute order on counsel for all parties in this
action.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb