Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 78

ORDER Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File a Motion to Amend. Additionally, Further Case Management Conference set for 2/6/2014 09:30 AM is RESCHEDULED to 3/6/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. A Joint CMC Statement shall be filed by 2/27/2014. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/28/2014. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

No. C-13-0228 EMC

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO
AMEND

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14
15

The Court held a further case management conference on January 23, 2014. During that

16

conference, the Court indicated that it needed to review the procedural history in the case to

17

determine how best to proceed. Having reviewed the record, the Court hereby gives Plaintiffs leave

18

to file a motion to amend their complaint.

19
20

The Court further instructs or advises Plaintiffs as follows:
(1)

Plaintiffs should attach to their motion to amend a copy of their proposed amended

21

complaint. The proposed amended complaint should contain only “a short and plain

22

statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiffs are] entitled to relief.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Of course, this does not mean that Plaintiffs should allege facts in a conclusory fashion.
Under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009), “a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations [but] it must plead ‘enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th
Cir. 2009) (emphasis added); see also Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir. 2013)
(stating that “[p]lausibility requires pleading facts, as opposed to conclusory allegations or the
‘formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action’”).

1

(emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ prior pleadings – more than 60 and 50 pages respectively –

2

were not appropriate given the relative lack of complexity in this case.

3

(2)

Plaintiffs should not include any claim in the proposed amended complaint that the Court has

4

already dismissed with prejudice. The amended complaint shall only include those claims

5

for which this Court has denied a motion to dismiss plus those which are new (which the

6

Court has not addressed). Further, Plaintiffs should not include any claim in the proposed

7

amended complaint if it is not viable based on the Court’s analysis in its prior orders (e.g.,

8

suing Ms. Ku in her individual capacity for a Title II ADA violation). See Docket No. 75

9

(Order at 2 n.4).
(3)

Because Plaintiffs continue to assert IFP status, the Court will conduct a review pursuant to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

28 U.S.C. § 1915 prior to ordering service and any response to the proposed amended

12

complaint.

13

The case management conference set for February 6, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., is hereby

14

rescheduled for March 6, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint case management

15

conference statement shall be filed by February 27, 2014.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: January 28, 2014

20

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2