In Re Pacific Fertility Center Litigation

Filing 567

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 547 Motion to Dismiss. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2020)

Case 3:18-cv-01586-JSC Document 567 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
IN RE PACIFIC FERTILITY CENTER

7

LITIGATION

8

Case No. 18-cv-01586-JSC
This Document Relates to: All Actions

9
ORDER RE: CHART'S MOTION TO
DISMISS

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Re: Dkt. No. 547

12
13

These consolidated cases arise out of a March 2018 incident involving a cryopreservation

14

tank storing Plaintiffs’ eggs and embryos. Chart Industries Inc., who manufactured the tank, is the

15

sole remaining defendant in this action as the other defendants have all been compelled to

16

arbitration. Following this Court’s order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, 133

17

class members filed individual actions, all of which have been consolidated under this lead case

18

number. Chart has filed a motion to dismiss the 133 consolidated actions under Federal Rule of

19

Civil Procedure 8.1 (Dkt. No. 552.) Having considered the parties’ briefs, the Court concludes

20

that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES the motion to

21

dismiss.

22

DISCUSSION

23

Chart moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaints for failing to comply with Rule

24

8’s requirement that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim” citing

25

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996), and Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins.

26
27
28

1

All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c). (Dkt. No. 553.)

Case 3:18-cv-01586-JSC Document 567 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 3

1

Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). (Dkt. No. 547 at 3. 2) In particular, Chart contends that

2

the complaints “are needlessly prolix in evidentiary detail, replete with redundancy and

3

argumentative to the point of sensationalism.” (Dkt. No. 564 at 2:26-3:1.)
Plaintiffs’ 15-page complaints contain three claims for relief: (1) strict products liability -

4
5

manufacturing defect; (2) strict products liability – design defect; and (3) negligent failure to

6

recall. In support of these claims, Plaintiffs include detailed factual allegations regarding the tank,

7

its functions, its alleged failure, and the alleged harm as a result of the failure. Because the parties

8

have been actively engaged in discovery over the past year and a half, Plaintiffs are necessarily

9

able to plead their factual allegations with more particularity than they did in the version of the
second amended class action complaint filed over a year ago. (Dkt. No. 267.) While Plaintiffs are

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

not required under Rule 8 to include such detailed allegations, the Court does not fault them for

12

doing so.
Chart’s reliance on McHenry and Nevijel is misplaced. In those cases, the Ninth Circuit

13
14

was reviewing district court orders dismissing complaints under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15

41(b) for failure to comply with the courts’ orders to file an amended complaint that complied

16

with Rule 8. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming dismissal of 37-page complaint containing

17

two claims which were “set out in a single sentence thirty lines long, alleging numerous and

18

different violations of rights, without any specification of which of the twenty named defendants

19

or John Does is liable for which of the wrongs,” id. at 1174); Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674 (affirming

20

dismissal of “second complaint [which] was 23 pages long with 24 pages of addenda, named

21

additional defendants without leave of court, and was equally as verbose, confusing and

22

conclusory as the initial complaint”).
“[A] dismissal for a violation under Rule 8(a)(2), is usually confined to instances in which

23
24

the complaint is so verbose, confused and redundant that its true substance, if any, is well

25

disguised.” Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969) (internal citation and

26

quotation marks omitted). It is a “harsh remedy,” and the court “should first consider less drastic

27
28

Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
2
2

Case 3:18-cv-01586-JSC Document 567 Filed 10/05/20 Page 3 of 3

1

alternatives.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178; see also Hearns v. San Bernadino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d

2

1124, 1130-33 (9th Cir. 2008). Under the circumstances here, the harsh remedy of dismissal is not

3

warranted. While Chart may object to the dramatic nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations, it does not

4

contend—nor could it—that it is unable to respond to Plaintiffs’ allegations because of the way

5

they are pled. That it may be “difficult” to do so, does not warrant dismissal. (Dkt. No. 564 at 5.)

6

Accordingly, Chart’s motion to dismiss is denied.
CONCLUSION

7
8
9

For the reasons stated above, Chart’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. Chart shall file its
answer to the consolidated complaints in 14 days.
This Order disposes of Docket. No. 547.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: October 5, 2020

13
14
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3