Vogel v. Oceanside Unified School District et al
Filing
66
ORDER granting in part 57 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and Order of Dismissal. To the extent the motion for judgment on the pleadings may have contemplated dismissal with prejudice, it is denied, but in all other respects it is granted, and the SAC is dismissed. No later than September 15, 2014, Vogel may file her third amended complaint. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 8/15/14. (cge)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TATYANA VOGEL,
12
CASE NO. 11cv2322-LAB (JMA)
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS; AND
vs.
13
14
OCEANSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST.,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Defendant.
15
16
17
Plaintiff Tatyana Vogel, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, filed her complaint in
18
this action bringing discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The
19
Court dismissed the original complaint for failure to invoke its jurisdiction. Vogel then filed
20
an amended complaint, which was screened and dismissed. She then filed her second
21
amended complaint (the “SAC”), which survived screening and was served on Defendant.
22
At the time Vogel filed her SAC, she was proceeding pro se. Since then, she has obtained
23
counsel, who is now representing her.
24
Defendant has now moved for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
25
P. 12(c). The motion argues Vogel’s claims are vague and incomprehensible, and therefore
26
fail to meet the pleading standards, even when construed liberally. The motion is not long,
27
but cites particular portions of the SAC to show the pleadings are missing the necessary
28
facts.
-1-
11cv2322
1
The Court construes pro se pleadings in civil rights cases liberally, King v. Atiyeh, 814
2
F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987), but will not supply facts a plaintiff has not pleaded. See Ivey
3
v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982). The pleading
4
standard is governed by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
5
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868
6
(2009). This standard doesn't allow a plaintiff to plead mere “labels and conclusions;” rather,
7
she must allege facts sufficient to raise her “right to relief above the speculative level.”
8
Twombly at 555. The pleaded facts must show her claim is plausible, not merely possible.
9
Iqbal at 678.
10
The fact that the Court found the SAC could survive screening preclude or even weigh
11
against dismissal; “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and
12
not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may choose to
13
bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1119 (S.D.Cal. 2007).
14
Vogel’s opposition, filed by her counsel, bravely defends the SAC, pointing out
15
specific factual allegations, and characterizing the pleadings as adequately identifying acts
16
of discrimination and retaliation. The opposition acknowledges the Twombly and Iqbal
17
standard, but goes somewhat too far in citing Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 37
18
F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1994) for the principle that the Court must assume that general
19
allegations “embrace whatever specific facts might be necessary to support them.” Peloza,
20
however, cites Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 889 (1990), which in turn
21
cites Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957) for this principle. The old Conley
22
standard, however, was specifically disapproved in Twombly. For this point, Peloza is
23
therefore no longer good law.
24
Significantly, the opposition cites and characterizes large portions of the SAC, rather
25
than quoting or pointing out specific facts alleged in it. The Court has carefully reviewed the
26
SAC, the motion, the opposition, and the reply. It is not necessary to set down specific
27
detailed analysis in this order; it is sufficient to say that Defendant’s criticisms of the SAC in
28
both its motion and reply brief are well-taken.
-2-
11cv2322
1
Although the motion is styled as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and cites
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), its arguments are the kind normally found in a Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(e)
3
motion. That is, they simply argue that the SAC’s allegations are too vague, generalized,
4
and confusing to meet the pleading standard. The motion does not argue that the pleadings
5
show Vogel’s claims fail as a matter of law, or that amendment would be futile. Nor does it
6
rely on outside evidence, which might result in the motion being treated as a motion for
7
summary judgment. See Rule 12(d).
8
After attempting to show that the SAC is sufficient, the opposition requests that if the
9
Court is inclined to grant the motion, Vogel be given leave to amend. While the reply brief
10
reiterates its arguments for dismissal, it does not attempt to show, nor does it show, that
11
Vogel could not successfully amend if given the opportunity. Normally, a plaintiff will be given
12
an opportunity to amend, unless amendment would be futile or one of several other factors
13
is present. See In re Ford Tailgate Litigation, 2014 WL 3899545, slip op. at *6 (N.D.Cal.,
14
Aug. 8, 2014) (citing, inter alia, Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052
15
(9th Cir. 2003) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Here, it does not appear any of those factors are
16
present. While it is an open question whether Vogel can amend successfully (that is, whether
17
she can, consistently with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, plead facts that would establish her right to
18
relief), the Court cannot rule out the possibility.
19
To the extent the motion for judgment on the pleadings may have contemplated
20
dismissal with prejudice, it is DENIED, but in all other respects it is GRANTED, and the SAC
21
is DISMISSED. No later than September 15, 2014, Vogel may file her third amended
22
complaint.
23
Vogel should take care that if she files a third amended complaint, it remedies the
24
defects pointed out in the briefing on this motion, because she is now on notice of what
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
-3-
11cv2322
1
those defects are. If the third amended complaint fails to remedy them, the likely conclusion
2
will be that she cannot successfully amend.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 15, 2014
5
6
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
11cv2322
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?