Guidry et al v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al

Filing 97

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 73 Motion to Dismiss (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

BRIAN SCOTT GUIDRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: 12-cv-5639 JSC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS (Dkt. No. 73)

v.

15
16

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL PARKS
CONSERVANCY,
Cross-Claimant,

21
22
23

v.
ALCATRAZ CRUISES, LLC

24
25
26

Cross-Defendant.
Now pending before the Court is Defendant/Cross-Defendant Alcatraz Cruises, LLC’s

27

(“Alcatraz”) motion to dismiss Defendant/Cross-Claimant Golden Gate Park Conservancy’s

28

(“GGNPC”) third claim for relief. (Dkt. No. 73.) After carefully considering the parties’

1

submissions, and having had the benefit of oral argument on February 6, 2014, the Court GRANTS

2

the motion with prejudice.

3

GGNPC and Alcatraz are co-defendants, each being sued by Brian Scott Guidry and Peggy

4

Kuykendall (“Plaintiffs”) for alleged injuries that the Plaintiffs suffered while riding a tram on

5

Alcatraz Island. GGNPC cross-claimed against Alcatraz on numerous theories, including a strict

6

products liability claim for relief because an alleged defect in the design and manufacture of the tram

7

caused GGNPC to incur legal costs in defending against the Plaintiffs’ claims. Alcatraz moves to

8

dismiss GGNPC’s strict products liability claim on the ground that GGNPC has not and cannot allege

9

that it suffered physical injury to person or property as a result of the accident.
LEGAL STANDARD

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a claim. A claim may be dismissed only

12

if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

13

would entitle him to relief.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation and

14

internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, the Court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law

15

for “lack of a cognizable legal theory.” Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534

16

(9th Cir. 1984).

17

“[C]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a

18

motion to dismiss.” Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.2004); see also Starr v. Baca,

19

652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]llegations in a complaint or counterclaim may not simply

20

recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to

21

give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.”). The court must be able

22

to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.

23

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief

24

. . . [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and

25

common sense.” Id. at 663–64.

26

DISCUSSION

27

In a strict products liability claim for relief, a defendant’s liability is limited to a defect that

28

causes physical injury to person or property. Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal. 2d 9, 18-19 (1963).

2

1

GGNPC alleges that the legal costs arising from its defense of the Plaintiffs’ claims and pursuit of the

2

cross-claim are damages caused by Alcatraz’s defective design and manufacture of the tram. (Dkt.

3

No. 66.) However, GGNPC does not explain how those legal costs can be characterized as physical

4

injury to person or property or cite any authority to support such a result. Because GGNPC does not

5

allege a cognizable legal injury that would support strict liability, its third claim for relief fails as a

6

matter of law.

7

If the Court concludes that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should be granted, the “court

8

should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines

9

that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203

Northern District of California

F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). As legal

11
United States District Court

10

costs are not physical injury to person or property as a matter of law, the deficiency in GGNPC’s

12

claim cannot be cured and thus must be dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION

13
14
15

For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant’s motion to dismiss CrossClaimant’s third claim for relief with prejudice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: February 7, 2014
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3