Mazzaferro v. Parisi et al

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, AND VACATING HEARING by Hon. William Alsup denying 88 Motion to Dismiss.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

RONALD MAZZAFERRO,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. C 16-05641 WHA

v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO DISMISS, GRANTING
MOTION FOR A MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT, AND
VACATING HEARING

WILLIAM PARISI, KEN JOHNSON,
SPENCER CRUM, BRUCE GOLDSTEIN,
JOSHUA MYERS, and LYNN SEARLE,
Defendants.
/

15
16

INTRODUCTION

17
18

In this Section 1983 action, defendants move to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 41(b), or in

19

the alternative for a more definite statement. For the reasons below, the motion to dismiss is

20

DENIED. The motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED.
STATEMENT

21
22

The history of this case is recited at length in previous orders (see Dkt. No. 80),

23

therefore this order repeats only certain necessary details. In October 2016, Plaintiff Ronald

24

Mazzaferro filed this action under Section 1983 for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

25

Certain claims and parties have since been dismissed.

26

In April 2017, two of the remaining parties, Deputy Ken Johnson and Sergeant Spencer

27

Crum, moved for a more definite statement. A May 11 order granted their motion. That order

28

provided that Mazzaferro shall:
provide a more definite statement with respect to the
claims against Deputy Sheriff Johnson and Sergeant

1

Crum. More specifically, Mazzaferro shall present
each claim separately and in a manner clear enough
that Sergeant Crum and Deputy Sheriff Johnson can
understand exactly what claims are being brought
against them. To make a clear record, Mazzaferro
shall provide the more definite statement in the form
of an amended complaint.

2
3
4
5

It further explained that “[t]he proposed amended complaint must be appended to a separate

6

redlined copy identifying all changes” (Dkt. No. 80).

7

In response to this order, Mazzaferro filed a document entitled “Plaintiff Ronald

8

Mazzaferro’s Court Ordered Amended Complaint in the Form of a More Definite Statement as

9

to Defendant Ken Johnson and Defendant Spencer Crum” to which he appended his second
amended complaint (Dkt. No. 84). The first document (hereinafter “third amended complaint”)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

contains factual allegations and legal claims directed at Deputy Johnson and Sergeant Crum.

12

The factual allegations are carried over verbatim from the earlier second amended complaint.

13

The two legal claims, however, are refashioned and presented in a more easily understood form.

14

Both allege that Deputy Johnson and Sergeant Crum violated Section 1983. The first claim is

15

predicated on violations of Mazzaferro’s Fourth Amendment rights, while the second is

16

predicated on violations of Mazzaferro’s First Amendment rights (id. ¶¶ 15–22).

17
18

Notably, the third amended complaint omits claims against all defendants other than
Deputy Johnson and Sergeant Crum. It also omits a statement of jurisdiction and venue.

19
20

ANALYSIS
Deputy Johnson and Sergeant Crum now move to dismiss under FRCP 41(b). In the

21

alternative, they move for a more definite statement. They allege that the third amended

22

complaint fails to comply with the May 11 order, and is so vague and ambiguous that they do

23

not know how to respond to it. In support of these arguments, they contend that they do not

24

know whether the third amended complaint, or the attached second amended complaint

25

controls. When read together, they argue, the documents are confusing.
FRCP 41(b).

26

1.

27

FRCP 41(b) provides that a defendant may move to dismiss an action against it “if the

28

plaintiff fails . . . to comply . . . with a court order.” FRCP 41(b) dismissal, however, “is so
2

1

harsh a remedy that it should be imposed as a sanction only in extreme circumstances.” Dahl v.

2

City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted).

3

The threshold question in the FRCP 41(b) analysis is whether Mazzaferro failed to

4

comply with an order. Unfortunately, this question does not have a clear answer. On the one

5

hand, Mazzaferro supplied a complaint that provides clarity as to his allegations against Deputy

6

Johnson and Sergeant Crum. It states each claim separately, and provides relatively short,

7

straightforward theories of liability.

8
9

As Deputy Johnson and Sergeant Crum point out, however, the third amended complaint
does not include claims against any of the other defendants named in the caption, nor does it
contain the required jurisdictional statement. It appears that Mazzaferro may have

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

misinterpreted the May 11 order to mean that he should author a separate document stating only

12

his claims against Deputy Johnson and Sergeant Crum, and omitting all other claims.

13

That is not what the May 11 order directed him to do. Rather, Mazzaferro was to

14

present all of his remaining claims against all remaining defendants in the form of an amended

15

complaint. His failure to do so, however, is not grounds for dismissal under FRCP 41(b). To

16

the extent Mazzaferro’s third amended complaint failed to comply with the May 11 order, the

17

failure was not so egregious as to warrant dismissal. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to

18

dismiss is DENIED.

19

2.

20

FRCP 12(e) provides that a party may move for a more definite statement when a

FRCP 12(e).

21

pleading “is so vague and ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”

22

Such motions are appropriate where “ambiguity arises in determining the nature of the claim or

23

the parties against whom it is being made.” FRCP 12(e) is designed to correct unintelligibility.

24

Optovue Corp. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., No. C 07-3010 CW, 2007 WL 2406885, at *3 (N.D.

25

Cal. Aug. 20, 2007) (Chief Judge Claudia Wilken).

26

Despite having seemingly clarified his allegations against Deputy Johnson and Sergeant

27

Crum, Mazzaferro’s third amended complaint remains ambiguous. It is not clear whether

28

Mazzaferro has dropped claims against all other defendants, or whether he intends to
3

1

incorporate those claims into his third amended complaint via the attached second amended

2

complaint. Moreover, the third amended complaint is defective if not read in conjunction with

3

the second amended complaint because it fails to provide a jurisdictional statement as required

4

under FRCP 8(a)(1). Defendants’ confusion as to how to interpret these two documents is well-

5

founded. Therefore, defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED.

6

CONCLUSION

7

The motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 41(b) is DENIED. The motion for a more

8

definite statement is GRANTED. The hearing scheduled for July 13 is hereby VACATED.

complaint should state all claims he intends to pursue against all defendants who have not been

11
For the Northern District of California

Mazzaferro SHALL AMEND HIS COMPLAINT one last time. His fourth amended

10

United States District Court

9

dismissed from this action. Mazzaferro may not add any additional claims for relief not already

12

included in his second or third amended complaints. Mazzaferro must file the fourth amended

13

complaint by JULY 20 AT NOON. NO ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS WILL BE GRANTED.

14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19

Dated: July 7, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4