Cato v. US. Security Associates

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/22/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13
14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND THE
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

11
12

No. C 11-4345 SI

MARK A. CATO,

v.
U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES,
Defendant.

/

15
16
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is scheduled for a hearing on December 2, 2011.
17
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution
18
without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS
19
defendant’s motion and GRANTS plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. If plaintiff wishes to amend
20
the complaint, the amended complaint must be filed by December 19, 2011. The Court recommends
21
that plaintiff seek assistance from the Northern District’s Pro Se Help Desk (415.782.9000,
22
extension 8657).
23
24
BACKGROUND
25
On August 31, 2011, pro se plaintiff Mark Cato filed this lawsuit against defendant U.S. Security
26
Associates. The complaint includes a largely blank cover page, a letter written by plaintiff to the
27
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, a completed “Claim for Disability Benefits – Doctor’s
28

Certificate” form, a letter from one of plaintiff’s doctors, a letter from the San Francisco Worker’s

2

Compensation Appeals Board to plaintiff, a completed Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

“Declaration of Readiness” form, and a U.S. EEOC Notice of Right to Sue, dated December 1, 2010.

4

The complaint does not contain any statement of facts, nor does the complaint set forth any legal claims.

5

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state

6

a claim. As the complaint does not contain a statement of facts, the following facts are taken from

7

defendant’s motion. According to defendant, plaintiff is a former employee of U.S. Security Associates.

8

On November 11, 2008, plaintiff sustained an injury while acting in the course and scope of his

9

employment. On October 8, 2009, plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. On June

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

4, 2010, plaintiff settled his case in exchange for $12,750. Defendant states that on January 27, 2009,

11

plaintiff was terminated from his job for abandoning his post.

12
13

LEGAL STANDARD

14

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it

15

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,

16

the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

17

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard requires the plaintiff

18

to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”

19

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The Court must assume that the plaintiff’s allegations

20

are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Usher v. City of Los Angeles,

21

828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the court is not required to accept as true “allegations that

22

are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis.

23

Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).

24

Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

25

lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Where the plaintiff is pro se, the Court has an

26

obligation to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Bretz

27

v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). However, a pro se plaintiff must still

28

allege facts sufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine that a claim has been stated. Ivey v. Bd.
2

1

of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

2
3

DISCUSSION
Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of

5

jurisdiction. Defendant correctly notes that the complaint does not specify the basis of the Court’s

6

jurisdiction, nor does the complaint allege any specific claims or state what relief plaintiff seeks. With

7

regard to jurisdiction, defendant notes that plaintiff marked “diversity jurisdiction” on the civil cover

8

sheet, and yet also stated that the parties were citizens of the same state. Docket No. 1-2. Diversity

9

jurisdiction is established where the parties are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

is at least $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). In the absence of diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff must

11

allege a basis for federal jurisdiction, such as a claim under a federal statute.

12

Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion states, among other things, that he believes

13

defendant has discriminated against him on account of his race; defendant failed to hire, promote, and

14

wrongfully terminated him; defendant failed to accommodate his disability; and defendant harassed him

15

and retaliated against him.

16

The Court finds that the complaint as currently pled is subject to dismissal for both lack of

17

jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court will grant plaintiff leave to file an amended

18

complaint. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, the complaint shall (1) identify the basis of the

19

Court’s jurisdiction (for example, if there is a federal claim and/or if there is diversity jurisdiction under

20

28 U.S.C. § 1332); (2) specifically identify the claims that plaintiff is asserting (for example, if plaintiff

21

is suing under a federal or state statute, the complaint shall identify that statute); (3) state, as clearly as

22

possible, the facts giving rise to the complaint, including the dates upon which the events occurred; and

23

(4) state the relief that plaintiff seeks (for example, monetary damages and/or injunctive relief). The

24

Court recommends that plaintiff seek assistance from the Northern District’s Pro Se Help Desk

25

(415.782.9000, extension 8657).

26
27
28

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss and GRANTS
3

1

plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, the

2

amended complaint must be filed by December 19, 2011.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: November 22, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4