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)

Download PDF
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

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?