Edwards v. Coachella Valley Water District

Filing 29

ORDER granting Defendant's 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Pla's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. Pla may file a Second Amended Complaint by 10/30/2014. However, unless he provides fact s connecting Dft to the Southern District, this matter will be transferred to the Central District of California. Dft's 21 Motion for More Definite Statement and to Motion to Change Venue are terminated as moot. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 9/15/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

STEPHEN EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19

Case No. 12-cv-2976 BAS (RBB)
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS (ECF 21)

v.
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT,
Defendant.

20
21
22

On December 13, 2012, Plaintiff Stephen Edwards filed a complaint, which
the court dismissed sua sponte and with leave to amend. ECFs 1, 3.

23

Then on January 16, 2013, Edwards filed an amended complaint. ECF 5. In

24

response, Defendant Coachella Valley Water District filed a motion to dismiss,

25

transfer venue, and in the alternative for a more definite statement. ECF 21.

26

Because the Amended Complaint does not comply with the requirements of

27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

28
–1–

12-cv-2976 BAS (RBB)

1

I. LEGAL STANDARD

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires complaints to include a “short

3

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This

4

statement must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and

5

the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

6

(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The complaint must

7

plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

8

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (2007). The plaintiff is further obligated to provide the

9

grounds for relief, including the causes of action under which the suit is brought.
However, a court need not accept “legal

10

See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

11

conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Unless the

12

plaintiff asserts a cognizable cause of action, the court does not have jurisdiction

13

over the claims. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677.

14

Generally, courts may not consider material outside the complaint when

15

ruling on a motion to dismiss. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co.,

16

896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). However, documents specifically

17

identified in the complaint whose authenticity is not questioned by parties may also

18

be considered.

19

(superceded by statutes on other grounds). Moreover, the court may consider the

20

full text of those documents, even when the complaint quotes only selected

21

portions. Id. It may also consider material properly subject to judicial notice

22

without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Barron v. Reich,

23

13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994).

24
25
26

Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1080 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995)

As a general rule, a court freely grants leave to amend a complaint which has
been dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
II. DISCUSSION

27

Edwards’ Amended Complaint fails to provide the Court with any defined

28

causes of action for which relief can be granted. Edwards does not provide the
–2–

12-cv-2976 BAS (RBB)

1

statutes or common law theories authorizing his suit. Edwards must provide (1)

2

causes of action under which he is suing, and (2) a plain statement of the facts

3

providing all the required elements of a claim under that cause of action.

4

Further, he does not provide evidence that he received a right-to-sue letter,

5

which is required if he is claiming relief after dismissal by the Equal Employment

6

Opportunity Commission. Scholar v. Pacific Bell, 963 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir.

7

1992). Edwards must allege facts in the complaint itself when he received his right-

8

to-sue letter. If the right to sue letter was received more than 90 days before his

9

complaint was first filed, he must allege facts in the complaint providing a basis to

10

equitably toll the 90-day statute of limitation.

11

Lastly, Edwards’ complaint does not provide any connection between the

12

alleged injury and this judicial district. Without properly asserting facts connecting

13

Defendant to this district, Edwards cannot properly sue Defendant in this Court.

14

Edwards must either provide facts in his complaint connecting his injury to the

15

Southern District of California or file his complaint in the Central District of

16

California.

17

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

18

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Edwards’ complaint is

19

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

20

Edwards may file his Second Amended Complaint on or before October 30, 2014.

21

However, unless he provides facts connecting Defendant to the Southern District,

22

this matter will be transferred to the Central District of California.

23

Defendant’s motions to transfer venue and for a more definite statement are

24

TERMINATED AS MOOT.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

DATED: September 15, 2014

28
–3–

12-cv-2976 BAS (RBB)