Jones v. Skolnik et al

Filing 98

ORDER adopting in part 72 Report and Recommendations. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Partial Objections 79 to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 72 is hereby sustained, and the matter is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration of Defendants' Motion to DismissCount V 44 against Defendant Melanie Mason. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 72 is adopted and accepted, as follows: IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count V 44 against Defendant Janet Traut is GRANTED, and Count V against Defendant Traut is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/11/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 ***** 9 10 11 12 13 CHRISTOPHER A. JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) 3:10-cv-00162-LRH-VPC ORDER 14 15 Before the court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke 16 (#721) entered on November 2, 2011, recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#44) filed 17 on April 12, 2011, be granted as to Defendant Janet Traut and be denied as to Defendant Melanie 18 Mason. Defendants filed their Partial Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 19 (#79) on November 18, 2011. Plaintiff filed his Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Reports and 20 Recommendation (#80) on November 18, 2011. Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections 21 (#84) on December 1, 2011. This action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 1B 1-4 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for 23 the District of Nevada. 24 The court has conducted its de novo review in this case, has fully considered the objections of 25 26 1 Refers to court’s docket number. 1 the Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants’ response, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and 2 other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The 3 Court determines that Defendants’ Partial Objections (#79) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 4 Recommendation (#67) entered on October 20, 2011, should be sustained and the matter referred to 5 the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration on the merits of Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count V 6 against Defendant Melanie Mason. In all other respects, the court determines that the Magistrate 7 Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#72) entered on November 2, 2011, should be adopted and 8 accepted. 9 The recommendation to deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count V against Defendant Mason 10 is based on the determination that Defendants had failed to submit any properly authenticated evidence 11 in support of their motion, despite the fact that Defendants relied on exhibits that are attached to 12 Plaintiff’s amended complaint. This determination is erroneous. “A copy of a written instrument that 13 is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). 14 Accordingly, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court may consider not only the allegations contained 15 in the pleadings but also “exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial 16 notice.” Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, in order to prevent 17 plaintiffs from avoiding dismissal “by deliberately omitting references to documents upon which their 18 claims are based,” the court may also consider documents not physically attached to the complaint if 19 (1) the documents’ authenticity is not contested, and (2) either the allegations of the complaint 20 “explicitly incorporate[]” the documents’ contents, or the complaint “necessarily relies” on the 21 documents, in that they are “crucial” or “essential” to the plaintiff’s claims. Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 22 F.3d 699, 705-06 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994)). Here, 23 because the exhibits in question were attached to Plaintiff’s amended complaint, they are considered 24 a part of the pleadings and are therefore properly considered on a motion to dismiss without further 25 authentication. 26 2 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Partial Objections (#79) to the Magistrate 2 Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#72) entered on November 2, 2011, is hereby sustained, and the 3 matter is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 4 Count V (#44) against Defendant Melanie Mason. 5 6 7 8 9 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#72) entered on November 2, 2011, is adopted and accepted, as follows: IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count V (#44) against Defendant Janet Traut is GRANTED, and Count V against Defendant Traut is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 11th day of January, 2012. 11 12 13 14 _______________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?