Tran v. Daniel et al

Filing 38

ORDER GRANTING 31 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/20/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

:Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran,
v.

8
9

SANDRA LEZLIE DANIEL, et al.,
Defendants.

10

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND
[Re: ECF 31]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04243-BLF

12
:Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran initiated this action on July 26, 2017 against Defendants Sandra

13
14

Lezlie Daniel, Terri Lynn Stinson, Thomas Michael Scott, and Cambridge Management Company,

15

Inc.1 (collectively, “Defendants”). See ECF 1. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and

16

:Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran filed an amended complaint as of right, although the allegations against

17

Defendants remained substantially the same as the original complaint. See Amended Complaint,

18

ECF 17. On November 28, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for

19

failure to state a claim. See ECF 31 (“Mot.”). :Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran’s opposition to the motion

20

to dismiss was due on or before December 12, 2017, but no opposition was filed with the Court or

21
22
23

served on Defendants. See Civ. L. R. 7-3(a) (“The opposition must be filed and served not more
than 14 days after the motion was filed.”); see also Defendants’ Notice of Non-Opposition, ECF
36.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for submission

24
25
26
27
28

without oral argument and VACATES the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint scheduled for February 15, 2018. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
1

Erroneously sued as “CAMDRIDGE MANAGEMENT.” See ECF 17.

1

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

2
3

claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’” Conservation

4

Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241–42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d

5

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). When determining whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts

6

as true all well-pled factual allegations and construes them in the light most favorable to the

7

plaintiff. Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 690 (9th Cir. 2011).

8

However, the Court need not “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly

9

subject to judicial notice” or “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of
fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). While a complaint need not contain

12

detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

13

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

14

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when it

15

“allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

16

alleged.” Id.

17
18

II.

DISCUSSION
Like its predecessor, the Amended Complaint in this civil action sounds in criminal law.

19

:Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran captions the pleading as an “Affidavit of Information Felonies, High

20

Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and labels it a “Criminal Complaint.” See Amended Complaint at 1.

21

Moreover, :Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran refers to the Defendants as “wrongdoers” and accuses them of

22

committing crimes in a detailed but largely incomprehensible “crime list.” Id. at 6. As the Court

23

previously held in its denial of :Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran’s motion for summary judgment/default

24

judgment in this action, :Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran does not have standing to bring a criminal

25

complaint against Defendants. See ECF 13.

26

Individuals cannot file criminal charges in the United States District Court. Rather,

27

criminal proceedings in federal court are initiated by the government, usually through the United

28

States Attorney’s Office. See, e.g., Harbor v. Kim, No. ED CV 16-01906-GW-KS, 2017 WL
2

1

443164, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) (“The decision to institute criminal proceedings lies within

2

the discretion of the proper state or federal prosecuting authority”); see also United States v.

3

Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (observing that the executive branch has “exclusive authority and

4

absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case”). Because :Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran lacks

5

standing to bring criminal charges, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for

6

lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is

7

GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

8
9

The Amended Complaint also fails to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants
argue that the Amended Complaint is generally so unintelligible as to fail to provide Defendants
with notice of the claims against them. See Mot. at 2. The Court agrees. The Amended

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Complaint does not contain any coherent causes of action, but rather lists a number of crimes as

12

well as various California Civil, Penal and Government Code sections, without any factual

13

allegations to render any claim for relief plausible on its face. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Bare

14

accusations without any facts or context that Defendants committed “treason” and “slavery,” are

15

insufficient to put Defendants on notice of the claims against them. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

16

(“[P]laintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than

17

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

18

do.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Ultimately, the Amended Complaint does not

19

provide a “short and plain statement” of this Court’s jurisdiction or :Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran’s

20

entitlement to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended

21

Complaint is therefore GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

22

Although Rule 15 provides that leave to amend shall be “freely given” when justice so

23

requires, courts consider five factors to assess the propriety of granting leave to amend: (1) bad

24

faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5)

25

whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911

26

F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Of these so-

27

called Foman factors, prejudice is the weightiest and most important. Eminence Capital, LLC v.

28

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). The prejudice to Defendants in this case is
3

1

substantial. The Amended Complaint accuses Defendants of serious criminal acts without any

2

supporting factual allegations. Moreover, :Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran has already amended the original

3

complaint, and further amendment would be futile because :Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran does not have

4

standing to bring a criminal complaint against Defendants and the Court can think of no set of

5

facts that would permit :Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran to plead a valid cause of action.

6
7
8
9

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The Clerk shall close the file.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: December 20, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4