Bennett et al v. Simplexgrinnell LP

Filing 50

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Denying in Part and Granting in Part 39 Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion to Strike (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 DON C. BENNETT, et al., Plaintiff(s), 8 9 v. ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE 10 SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court No. C 11-1854 PJH 12 Defendant(s). _______________________________/ 13 Defendant’s motion to dismiss and to strike came on for hearing on December 7, 14 2011. Plaintiffs appeared through counsel Karla Gilbride and Catha Worthman and 15 defendant appeared through counsel Carolyn Hall. Having read the parties’ papers and 16 considered their arguments made at the hearing and the relevant legal authority, the court 17 hereby DENIES in part and GRANTS in part defendant’s motion to dismiss and DENIES its 18 motion to strike, for the reasons stated at the hearing and summarized as follows. 19 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim is 20 DENIED. The court finds the allegations of the complaint sufficient to put defendant on 21 notice as to the claims and further finds that the complaint is not unduly conclusory. When 22 read in its entirety the complaint contains more than the simple formulaic elements of the 23 claims. 24 2. With regard to defendant’s motion to strike, the court agrees with defendant 25 that there is abundant law in this circuit establishing that plaintiffs as former employees of 26 defendant lack standing to sue for injunctive relief. The court declines plaintiffs’ invitation to 27 try to “get around” the authority so holding. Because the court finds that a motion to strike 28 is not the appropriate vehicle for making this argument, See Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi- 1 Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010), but because the parties have fully addressed 2 this issue, the court construes the motion as one brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and 3 GRANTS the motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to the prayer for injunctive relief, 4 because it is not available as a matter of law. 5 6 7 8 As this prayer is the only aspect of the complaint that is dismissed, the court finds that an amended complaint is unnecessary. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 7, 2011 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?