Sono v. Georgia-Pacific Corrugated LLC et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING 4 MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Jon S. Tigar. Joint Case Management Statement due by 4/1/2025. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/8/2025 at 02:00 PM - Videoconference Only. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar .Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jstCourt Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court a s making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names of all counsel appearing for all parties must be sent in one email to the CRD at [e-mail] no later than 04/07/2025 at 2:00PM PST.General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.(dms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM SONO,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 24-cv-08581-JST

10

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED
LLC, et al.,

11

Defendants.

Re: ECF No. 4

12
13

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 4. The Court finds this

14

matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b),

15

and will grant the motion.

16

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that “[a]ll of the eleven

17

causes of action alleged by Plaintiff fail to meet the basic pleading requirements under FRCP Rule

18

8(a) that Plaintiff must plead his claim with sufficient specificity to ‘give the defendant fair notice

19

of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” ECF No. 10 at 8 (quoting Fed. R.

20

Civ. P. 8).

21
22

The argument section of Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion reads, in its entirety, as
follows:

27

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” [] A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged. [] The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (internal citations omitted).

28

When a complaint’s allegations are capable of more than one

23
24
25
26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

inference, the court must adopt whichever plausible inference
supports a valid claim. Starr v. Baca 652 F3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir.
2011). “[T]he complaint should be read as a whole, not parsed piece
by piece to determine whether each allegation, in isolation, is
plausible.” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th
Cir. 2009); Garcia-Catalán v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 103 (1st
Cir. 2013).
The choice between two plausible inferences that may be drawn
from factual allegations is not a choice to be made by the court on a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court cannot dismiss a complaint that
alleges a “plausible version of the events merely because the court
finds a different version more plausible.” AndersonNews, L.L.C. v.
American Media, Inc., 680 F3d 162, 185 (2nd Cir. 2012); see
HDC,LLC v. City of Ann Arbor, 675 F3d 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2012)
(“mere existence of an ‘eminently plausible’ alternative, lawful
explanation . . . not enough to dismiss a complaint raising a
plausible claim”).
Plaintiff’s Complaint plausibly alleges the causes of action pled.
See Complaint paragraphs 6-11.
ECF No. 12 at 4–5 (alterations in original).
Paragraphs 6 through 11 of the complaint read as follows:
6. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to discrimination/harassment/
retaliation on the bases of disability, request for and exercise of
reasonable accommodation, opposition to/disclosure of/refusal to
perform discrimination/harassment/retaliation, opposition to/
disclosure of/refusal to perform violation of the law, opposition to/
disclosure of/refusal to perform an unsafe work environment,
opposition to/disclosure of/refusal to perform Labor Code
violations, assertion of rights under the Labor Code.
7. Defendant failed to engage in a timely good faith interactive
process and provide reasonable accommodation for Plaintiffs
disabilities.
8. Defendant’s failure to provide reasonable accommodation caused
and exacerbated Plaintiffs physical injuries and disabilities.
9. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to increased scrutiny, unlawful
instructions, termination, and failure to reinstate to a discrimination
free work environment.
10. Defendants’ actions constitute disparate impact and disparate
treatment. discrimination. [sic]
11. Plaintiff has received a Right to Sue letter from the California
Civil Rights Department and has thus exhausted all necessary
administrative remedies[.]

28
2

1
2

Plaintiff’s opposition correctly recites the law (albeit relying on out-of-circuit authority at

3

times), but the allegations in the complaint fail to satisfy federal pleading standards. As the

4

Supreme Court explained in Iqbal, a case on which Plaintiff relies:

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ECF No. 1-3 at 7–8.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must
contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” As the Court held in [Bell Atlantic
Corp. v.] Twombly, the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not
require “detailed factual allegations,” but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.
A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Nor does
a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of
“further factual enhancement.”

11

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677–78 (second alteration in original) (citations omitted). The factual

12

allegations on which Plaintiff relies, as excerpted in full above, are what the Supreme Court has

13

instructed “do not suffice”—namely, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

14

supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id. at 678.

15

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. The Court grants leave to amend

16

because it does not conclude “that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of

17

other facts.” Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th

18

Cir. 1990). Any amended complaint must be filed within 21 days of the date of this order. Failure

19

to file an amended complaint by that date will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice.

20

Plaintiff may not add any new defendants or claims for relief absent a stipulation from Defendants

21

or a successful motion for leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

22
23
24
25
26
27

The March 4, 2025 case management conference is continued to April 8, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.
A joint case management statement is due by April 1, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2025
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

28
3