Barbieri et al v. Figueroa et al

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 4 Motion to Dismiss, denying Motion to Remand (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/12/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8

RONALD JAMES BARBIERI, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO DISMISS

JAIME FIGUEROA, et al.,

12

No. C 12-1043 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

13
14

Pro se plaintiff Ronald James Barbieri filed this action on March 1, 2012, against

15

defendants Jaime Figueroa, Susan Figueroa, Benjamin C. Graves, and the Law Offices of

16

Benjamin C. Graves. Also named as a plaintiff in the complaint is Jeffrey-Thomas Smith.

17

On March 23, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, or, in the

18

alternative, a motion to remand all claims to the Superior Court of California, County of

19

Sonoma. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion within the time required under

20

the Civil Local Rules.

21
22
23

The court has reviewed the complaint and the defendants’ motion, and finds that the
motion to dismiss must be GRANTED and the motion to remand must be DENIED.
The complaint is dismissed because it is incomprehensible and unintelligible. The

24

court finds that plaintiffs have failed to assert “a short and plain statement of the claim

25

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal under

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is appropriate because the indecipherable allegations of

27

the complaint lack any cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable

28

legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

1

The motion to remand is DENIED. A case can be remanded to state court only if it

2

was originally filed there, and was removed to federal court by the defendant. See 28

3

U.S.C. § 1447. As this case was originally filed in this court, there is no rule authorizing

4

remand.

5

The dismissal is with leave to amend. No later than May 14, 2012, plaintiffs may file

6

an amended complaint that comports with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil

7

Procedure and the Civil Local Rules of this court. The amended complaint must allege a

8

basis for jurisdiction in this court; must state facts supporting the elements of the causes of

9

action; must allege cognizable causes of action, which must be set forth in separate
paragraphs; must specify which causes of action are asserted against which defendants;

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

and must be presented in the required format, as set forth in Civil Local Rule 3-4. The

12

court will dismiss the case if an amended complaint is not filed by the May 14, 2012

13

deadline.

14

In addition, the court advises plaintiff Ronald James Barbieri that unless he is an

15

attorney – which appears unlikely – he may not represent any one other than himself.

16

Accordingly, if the other plaintiff named in the complaint intends to proceed in this case, his

17

name must appear in the caption and he must sign any papers submitted to the court and

18

served on defendants.

19

The May 2, 2012 hearing date is VACATED.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: April 12, 2012
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2