Dutra v. BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. et al
Filing
32
Order by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins granting 16 Motion to Dismiss.(nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10
11
12
13
14
15
HAROLD DUTRA, JR.,
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
Plaintiff,
v.
BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH
AMERICA, INC. D/B/A ALLIED WASTE
SERVICES OF SAN MATEO,
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 16
Defendant.
16
17
The issue before the Court is whether Dutra has stated any claim for relief against his
18 former employer, BFI, arising out of BFI’s alleged three-week delay in making a settlement
19 payment to Dutra. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Dutra has failed to
20 state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and therefore GRANTS BFI’s
21 motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend as to the first, second, third, and sixth
22 causes of action, and without leave as to the fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action.
23
I. BACKGROUND
24
In analyzing claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court
25 assumes that all material facts alleged in the complaint are true. Coal. For ICANN
26 Transparency, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 611 F.3d 495, 501 (9th Cir. 2010). The complaint here
27 alleges that Dutra is a former employee of BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc.
28 (“BFI”) who suffered injuries while employed by BFI and became temporarily disabled.
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
1 Dkt. No. 7 ¶¶ 3-4, 9. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 350 (“Local
2 350”) represented Dutra in arbitration regarding the termination of his employment at BFI.
3 Id. ¶ 11. On May 18, 2007, the arbitrator ordered that Dutra be reinstated and awarded
4 $75,000 as back-pay under a collective bargaining agreement. Id. The award was not
5 enforced and Dutra was not allowed to return to work at BFI. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. On or about
6 November 25, 2009, Local 350 and BFI settled the dispute with Dutra for $35,000 on the
7 condition that Dutra not seek further employment with BFI. Id. ¶ 14. Dutra claims BFI
8 delayed payment of the settlement amount by three weeks. Id. ¶ 15.
9
Dutra filed this suit, alleging six causes of action against BFI and Local 350 and its
10 president (the “Union defendants”) collectively. Dkt. No. 1. Dutra’s complaint alleged
11 causes of action for discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, breach of contract, and breach
12 of the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing against all defendants. Id. ¶¶ 18-35.
13 The complaint also contained a cause of action against the Union defendants only for
14 breach of the duty to represent, and two causes of action against BFI for breach of fiduciary
15 duty and for violations of California Labor Code §§ 200, 201, et seq. Id. ¶¶ 36-54. Dutra
16 subsequently filed a first amended complaint alleging an additional cause of action against
17 Local 350 for negligent misrepresentation. Dkt. No. 7 ¶¶ 55-62. On February 19, 2013,
18 Dutra voluntarily dismissed the Union defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
19 41(a). Dkt. No. 14. BFI then moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil
20 Procedure 4(m) and 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 16.
21
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
22 1331, 1343, and 1367(a). Dkt. No. 7 ¶¶ 1, 19. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a
23 United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. Nos. 8, 20.
24
25
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
26 accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
27 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “The
28 plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
2
1 sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully . . . . Where a complaint pleads facts
2 that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between
3 possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
4 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57) (internal quotation marks omitted). All allegations of
5 material fact are taken as true and are construed in the light most favorable to the non6 moving party. VeriSign, Inc., 611 F.3d at 501. However, a court is not required to accept
7 as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact.
8 See Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).
9 Additionally, a pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of
10 the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Where a court
11 dismisses for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), it should normally grant leave to
12 amend unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation
13 of other facts. Cook, Perkiss & Liehe v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th
14 Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
15
16 A.
BFI’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Settlement Agreement Is Granted.
17
As a general rule, a court may not look to matters beyond the complaint without
18 converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Datel Holdings Ltd. v.
19 Microsoft Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d 974, 983 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (Laporte, J.) (citations
20 omitted). However, a court may take judicial notice of “material which is either submitted
21 as part of the complaint or necessarily relied upon by the complaint,” as well as “matters of
22 public record.” Id. Courts may “consider unattached evidence on which the complaint
23 necessarily relies if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to
24 the plaintiff’s claims; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the document.” U.S. v.
25 Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and
26 citation omitted). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), a judicially noticed fact must be
27 one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the
28 territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
3
1 by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” See Datel, 712 F.
2 Supp. 2d at 983.
Here, BFI requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents: (1)
3
4 the settlement agreement between Dutra and BFI, executed by Dutra on November 25,
5 2009, and (2) a copy of the settlement check delivered to Dutra on December 14, 2009.
6 Dkt. No. 16 at 3:12-22. Dutra has not opposed this request. Judicial notice of the
7 settlement agreement is appropriate under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 because the
8 complaint refers to the settlement agreement, necessarily relies upon it, and no party
9 questions the authenticity of it. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 7 ¶¶ 25, 37, 51 (referring to the
10 “settlement agreement”); Dkt. No. 22 at 3:24-27 (discussing the contractual duties owed
11 under the “agreement,” referencing Exhibit E, Dkt. No. 16-1 at 9-12). While the settlement
12 check is also arguably central to Dutra’s claims and he has not questioned its authenticity,
13 the precise length of the alleged delay in payment is not material to the Court’s analysis on
14 the present motion to dismiss. The Court grants the request for judicial notice of the
15 settlement agreement, Exhibit E, Dkt. No. 16-1 at 9-12, and denies the request for judicial
16 notice of the settlement check, Exhibit F, Dkt. No. 16-1 at 13-14, as not necessary.
17 B.
18
19
20
BFI’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) Is Granted.
1.
Dutra Fails to State a Claim for Racial Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §
1981.
The complaint includes a cause of action against BFI for racial discrimination in
21 contracting under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Dkt. No. 7 ¶¶ 18-23. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) provides
22 that “[a]ll persons . . . shall have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be
23 parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the
24 security of persons and property . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Dutra alleges that BFI
25 was “acting in pursuant to official, de facto policies and in concert with [Local 350] . . .
26 with the shared objective to injure [Dutra] and others like [him].” Dkt. No. 7 ¶ 22. This
27 vague allegation is insufficient to support a § 1981 claim. As the Ninth Circuit has
28 explained, a § 1981 claim, like a Title VII claim, requires a showing of intentional racial
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
4
1 discrimination. Gay v. Waiters’ & Dairy Lunchmen’s Union, Local No. 30, 694 F.2d 531,
2 537-39 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Wood v. City of San Diego, 678 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir.
3 2012) (affirming the dismissal of Title VII disparate treatment claim where plaintiff
4 challenged a facially neutral policy and failed to specifically allege discriminatory intent).
5 As Dutra points out, “[t]o establish a claim under § 1981, a plaintiff must allege facts in
6 support of the following elements: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a racial minority; (2) an
7 intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the defendant; and (3) the discrimination
8 concerned one or more of the activities enumerated in the statute (i.e., make and enforce
9 contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence, etc.).” Jefferson v. City of Fremont, No. 12-cv10 0926 EMC, 2012 WL 1534913, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012) (citation omitted).
11
In opposition to the motion to dismiss, Dutra argues that he satisfies the required
12 elements for a § 1981 claim because he is Portugese, the contract impaired was his
13 settlement agreement with BFI, and he has suffered an injury as a result of BFI’s delay in
14 delivering the $35,000 settlement payment. Dkt. No. 22 at 2:26-28, 3:1-13. The § 1981
15 cause of action pled in the complaint, however, does not specify what the alleged
16 discrimination is or which of the activities enumerated in the statute it concerns. See Dkt.
17 No. 7 ¶¶ 19-22. The complaint states that “[v]iolations included but were not limited to”
18 the “[r]ight to be free from discrimination based on race and/or protected activity; and/or”
19 the “[r]ight to Equal Protection of the Law.” Id. ¶ 22. These allegations are entirely
20 conclusory and must be disregarded by the Court. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Moreover,
21 Dutra does not allege any facts whatsoever that could give rise to a plausible inference that
22 BFI’s delay in payment was intentional discrimination based on Dutra’s race. The Court
23 GRANTS BFI’s motion to dismiss Dutra’s first cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
24 with leave to amend.
25
2.
Dutra Fails to State a Claim for Breach of Contract.
26
The complaint alleges that BFI failed to comply with the terms of the settlement
27 agreement and the collective bargaining agreement. Dkt. No. 7 ¶ 25. “To state a claim for
28 breach of contract, a party must allege the existence of the contract, the plaintiff’s
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
5
1 performance or excuse for nonperformance, the defendant’s breach, and damages.” Oracle
2 Corp. v. DrugLogic, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 2d 885, 900 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Walsh v. West
3 Valley Mission Cmty. College Dist., 66 Cal. App. 4th 1532, 1545 (1998)). The breach of
4 contract cause of action pled by Dutra does not identify the contractual term that was
5 supposedly breached. In opposition to the motion, Dutra asserts that “[t]he contractual
6 duties owed by BFI to Plaintiff include the timely payment of the settlement proceeds –
7 wages – due under the release. A delay of ten (10) days is not reasonable, and violates the
8 express terms of the agreement (section E) and expectations of the parties (exhibit D).”
9 Dkt. No. 22 at 3:24-28. Dutra’s reference to a delay of ten days in the opposition
10 contradicts the allegations of the complaint that BFI delayed payment of the settlement
11 amount with three weeks, and appears to be in agreement with BFI’s contention that Dutra
12 cashed the check within 10 days after sending the executed settlement agreement to BFI.
13 Dkt. Nos. 7 ¶ 15; 16 at 3:12-17.
Irrespective of the precise length of the delay, the agreement provides that BFI will
14
15 “pay Dutra the gross amount of $35,000,” and that payment will be sent to Dutra’s counsel,
16 but does not specify a payment deadline. Dkt. No. 16-1 at 9-12. In the absence of an
17 express payment deadline, a reasonable time for payment is implied. Cal. Civ. Code §
18 1657; Henry v. Sharma, 154 Cal. App. 3d 665, 669 (1984). “What constitutes reasonable
19 time depends on the situation of the parties, the nature of the transaction and the facts of the
20 particular case.” Henry, 154 Cal. App. 3d at 672 (citations omitted). Here, the complaint
21 contains mere legal conclusions and alleges no facts to suggest that the timing of BFI’s
22 payment was unreasonable or that a particular deadline was contemplated by the parties.
23 Dkt. No. 7 ¶¶ 24-29. Dutra must plead “more than just notice of the claim. [Courts] require
24 that the claim be plausible.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing
25 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Because Dutra has failed to adequately allege a contractual
26 duty that was breached, the Court GRANTS BFI’s motion to dismiss as to the second cause
27 of action for breach of contract with leave to amend.
28 //
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
6
1
3.
2
Dutra Fails to State a Claim for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing.
Like the other claims discussed above, the cause of action for breach of the implied
3
4 obligation of good faith and fair dealing merely states legal conclusions which are
5 insufficient to support a claim for relief. Dkt. No. 7 ¶¶ 31-34 (stating that Dutra “suffered
6 and continues to suffer upon the breach of the agreements” and that “Defendants,
7 unreasonably or without proper cause, breached.”). BFI moves to dismiss this cause of
8 action on the grounds that Dutra has not alleged the “good faith” obligation BFI allegedly
9 owed him, or how he was damaged by any purported breach. Dkt. No. 16 at 5:12-14. In his
10 opposition, Dutra argues that the delay of ten days in making the settlement payment
11 breached both the settlement agreement and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
12 Dkt. No. 22 at 3:24-28.
The Ninth Circuit has held that “a breach of a specific provision of the contract is not
13
14 a necessary prerequisite to a breach [of the implied covenant of good faith]. . . . The
15 covenant is implied . . . to prevent a contracting party from engaging in conduct which
16 (while not technically transgressing the express covenant) frustrates the other party’s rights
17 of the benefits of the contract.” Marsu, B.V. v. Walt Disney Co., 185 F.3d 932, 937-38 (9th
18 Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Los Angeles Equestrian Center, Inc. v.
19 City of Los Angeles, 17 Cal. App. 4th 432, 447 (1993) (the implied covenant cannot be
20 extended to create obligations not contemplated by the parties to the contract)); see also
21 Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930-32 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (holding that where
22 there is no express or implied contractual term, there can be no related breach of the implied
23 covenant of good faith and fair dealing). Here, Dutra has not alleged any facts supporting
24 the conclusion that the timing of BFI’s settlement payment was unreasonable, that any other
25 rights under the settlement agreement were frustrated, or that BFI’s payment was made in
26 bad faith. Dkt. No. 7 ¶¶ 24-29. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS BFI’s motion to dismiss
27 the third cause of action with leave to amend.
28 //
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
7
1
4.
2
Dutra Fails to State a Claim for Untimely Payment of Wages Under the
California Labor Code.
Dutra’s fourth cause of action alleges that he “suffered a three-week delay in the
3
4 payment of his wages due under the settlement agreement” in violation of California Labor
5 Code “including but not limited to Labor Code section 200, 201, et. seq.” Dkt. No. 7 ¶¶
6 37-39. BFI moves to dismiss on the basis that the settlement payment does not constitute
7 wages. Dkt. No. 16 at 5:15-17. In response, Dutra asserts that he “alleged sufficient facts
8 to show the $35,000 settlement payment constituted wages under the terms of the Labor
9 Code because that is the very language inserted into the settlement agreement by BFI.
10 [Exhibits C & E].” Dkt. No. 22 at 4:2-5; see Dkt. No. 16-1 at 10 (settlement agreement)
11 (stating that the settlement payment “represents back wages owed to Dutra in compliance
12 with the Arbitration Award issued . . . on May 18, 2007”). This argument fails as a matter
13 of law.
As explained by the California Court of Appeal in Dep’t of Indus. Relations v. UI
14
15 Video Stores, Inc., 55 Cal. App. 4th 1084, 1096 (1997), the statutory penalties for untimely
16 payment of wages do not apply to payment pursuant to a settlement agreement. The
17 plaintiff in UI Video Stores brought a cause of action against the defendant for penalties
18 under California Labor Code § 203 for failure to promptly pay a settlement award that also
19 pertained to back-pay. Id. at 1088-89. UI Video Stores held that penalties under § 203
20 apply only to unpaid wages at the time of an employee’s discharge. Id. at 1096. The court
21 noted that failure to pay a settlement award “does not involve a failure to pay at the time of
22 discharge, and to the extent that the previous action did, any such penalty was subsumed
23 within the terms of the settlement agreement.” Id. Under the holding of UI Video Stores,
24 Dutra’s attempt to hold BFI liable for the alleged failure to promptly make a settlement
25 payment cannot give rise to a cause of action for untimely payment of wages under the
26 California Labor Code. The Court, therefore, GRANTS BFI’s motion to dismiss the fourth
27 cause of action without leave to amend.
28 //
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
8
1
5.
Dutra Fails to State a Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
2
Dutra’s sixth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty alleges that BFI “undertook
3 fiduciary duties to Plaintiff as defined, inter alia, by law, the Labor Code, and the settlement
4 agreement.” Id. ¶ 51. BFI moves to dismiss this cause of action on the basis that Dutra has
5 failed to allege a fiduciary relationship and that the employer-employee relationship is not
6 one that is fiduciary in nature. Dkt. No. 16 at 6:4-11; see O’Byrne v. Santa Monica-UCLA
7 Med. Ctr., 94 Cal. App. 4th 797, 811 (2001) (“employment-type relationships are not
8 fiduciary relationships.”). In his opposition, Dutra asserts that he was no longer an
9 employee of BFI at the time he executed the settlement agreement, and that “BFI acted as a
10 fiduciary of the wages, or funds, it held on behalf of Plaintiff under the agreement.” Dkt.
11 No. 22 at 4:16-21.
12
The only authority cited by Dutra in support for his position is Bay Area Laundry and
13 Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., Inc., 522 U.S. 192, 205 (1997), a
14 case brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, where the court noted
15 that a retirement plan’s beneficiaries could have a claim for a breach of fiduciary duty when
16 “[a] trustees’ delay in calculating withdrawal liability threatens the plan’s financial
17 position.” Id. This case does not apply to the facts before the Court here. Furthermore,
18 there is no factual basis alleged in the complaint that could support a claim that the
19 settlement agreement established a trust between Dutra and BFI with respect to the
20 settlement amount. A contract does not automatically give rise to a fiduciary relationship,
21 as creation of such a duty “requires unequivocal contractual language.” Chemical Bank v.
22 Security Pacific Nat. Bank, 20 F.3d 375, 377 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and
23 citation omitted); see also Marsh v. Home Fed. Savings & Loan Assn., 66 Cal. App. 3d 674,
24 681-82 (1977) (“A trust requires a clear intention to create the trust, although no particular
25 language is necessary to manifest that intent . . . It is the manifestation of intention which
26 controls and not the actual intention . . .”). Dutra has failed to identify any language in the
27 settlement agreement, Dkt. No. 16-1 at 9-12, or other facts suggesting that the parties
28 intended to create a fiduciary relationship. See id. Because the complaint fails to allege
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
9
1 facts supporting Dutra’s claim that the settlement agreement gave rise to a fiduciary
2 relationship between BFI and Dutra, the Court GRANTS BFI’s motion to dismiss the sixth
3 cause of action with leave to amend.
4
6.
5
The Fifth and Seventh Causes of Action Are Dismissed Without Leave to
Amend.
BFI requests that causes of action five and seven, which are addressed only to the
6
7 Union defendants, be dismissed. Dkt. No. 16 at 5:23-24, 6:12-13. Because Local 350 and
8 its president are no longer defendants, Dkt. No. 14, and Dutra agrees that these claims
9 should be dismissed, Dkt. No. 22 at 1:28, the Court GRANTS BFI’s request and dismisses
10 the fifth and seventh causes of action without leave to amend.
11 C.
Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) is not warranted.
12
BFI also argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to provide proper
13 service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Dkt. No. 16 at 3:1. On
14 December 5, 2012, the Court ordered Dutra to show cause why this action should not be
15 dismissed for failure to serve within the 120 day period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil
16 Procedure 4(m). Dkt. No. 6. at 1:27-28. On December 12, 2012, Dutra responded to the
17 Court’s order, stating that, after determining that the complaint required amendment, he
18 experienced delays in communicating with counsel. Dkt. No. 9. Dutra stated that service
19 would be completed within two weeks “assuming no significant problems.” Id. at 2:4-6.
20 The Court discharged the order to show cause on December 13, 2012. Dkt. No. 10. Dutra
21 subsequently filed a proof of service on February 8, 2013, indicating that BFI was served on
22 February 5, 2013. Dkt. No. 12. BFI argues that Dutra’s claims should be dismissed as he
23 failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) by disregarding his
24 commitment to complete service within two weeks of showing cause, and because BFI is
25 not required to show prejudice to justify dismissal. Dkt. No. 23 at 5:6-17.
26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states that, after a showing of good cause,
27 courts “must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” The Court has “broad
28 discretion to extend time for service under Rule 4(m),” as it “operates not as an outer limit
Case No. 12-cv-03338 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
10
t
n,
e
e.”
473
038,
1 subject to reduction but as an irreducible allowance Efaw v. Williams, 4 F.3d 10
th
7)
s
y
r
ke
of
2 1041 (9t Cir. 2007 (citations omitted). Courts may “consider factors lik a statute o
ons
judice to th defendan actual no
he
nt,
otice of a law
wsuit, and e
eventual ser
rvice.”
3 limitatio bar, prej
rnal
ion
a
le
e
factor,
4 Id. (inter quotati marks and citations omitted). Here, whil not a sole deciding f
nstrated any prejudice as a result o the delay in service and has act
a
of
y
tually
5 BFI has not demon
d
kt.
a
U
urt
6 received notice. Dk No. 23 at 5:6-17. Under the circumstances, the Cou is not
ed
ra’s
n
ng
after respon
nding to the Court’s order to
e
7 persuade that Dutr delay in completin service a
ause
l
8 show ca warrants dismissal of his claims.
9
IV. CONCLUS ION
C
10
0
Fo the foreg
or
going reason BFI’s motion to dis
ns,
m
smiss under Federal Ru of Civil
r
ule
l
ure
)
TED, with leave to ame as to th first, seco
end
he
ond, third, a
and
11 Procedu 12(b)(6) is GRANT
1
uses
thout leave as to the fo
ourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action.
h
f
12 sixth cau of action, and wit
2
urt
le
,
the
for
13 The Cou permits Dutra to fil a motion, within 21 days from t date of this order, f
3
ticed on a normal sche
n
edule. The proposed second amen
nded compl
laint
14 leave to amend, not
4
t
on.
otion should clearly ex
d
xplain how t amendm
the
ment
15 must be appended to the motio The mo
5
e
ies
ed
16 cures the deficienci describe above.
6
17
7
IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.
18
8
Date: June 14, 2013
19
9
____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 12-cv-0333 NC
38
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
R
N
DISMISS
11
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?