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)

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