Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00727-SI

Document 15

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DISCUSSION Plaintiff filed a one page complaint alleging that "[t]he discrimination, and the abuse of power, and the negligence of employees of defendant City of Pittsburg caused the foreclosure of plaintiff's properties, known as 430 E. 9th St., 415 E. 9th St. and 1160 York St. in Pittsburg, California." Complaint ¶ 4. The complaint does not contain any other factual allegations regarding the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is scheduled for a hearing on July 11, 2008. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. If plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint, plaintiff must file an amended complaint no later than July 18, 2008. v. CITY OF PITTSBURG, Defendant. / LIEM HIEU LE, Plaintiff, No. C 08-727 SI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

circumstances surrounding the foreclosures, nor does the complaint elaborate on the alleged discrimination. The complaint does not allege a claim under any federal or state law, and seeks damages in the amount of $2,000,000. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint or for a more definite statement. Defendant correctly

Case 3:08-cv-00727-SI

Document 15

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

argues that the complaint does not identify a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. The Court advises plaintiff that in order to file a lawsuit in federal court, there must be a basis for federal court jurisdiction, for example if the plaintiff is alleging a claim under a federal statute. Similarly, the complaint must contain factual allegations supporting plaintiff's claims; it is insufficient simply to allege "discrimination" without any supporting facts. Although somewhat unclear, it appears from plaintiff's opposition that his claim(s) relate to inspectors who issued code violations on plaintiff's properties. The Court informs plaintiff that these facts on their own do not appear to give rise to a claim under federal law. In addition, plaintiff is advised that a local government may not be sued based on the acts of an employee; instead, in order to bring a claim against a public entity such as the City of Pittsburg, plaintiff must allege that the employee acted pursuant to an official policy or custom. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000). (Docket No. 4). If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, the complaint shall (1) state the basis for federal jurisdiction; (2) specifically identify the claims that plaintiff is asserting (for example, if plaintiff is suing under a federal or state statute, the complaint shall identify that statute); (3) state, as clearly as possible, the facts giving rise to the complaint, including the dates upon which the events occurred; and (4) state the relief that plaintiff seeks. Any amended complaint must be filed by July 18, 2008.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 9, 2008 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

If plaintiff amends the complaint and cures the deficiencies described in this order, defendant may renew its arguments related to plaintiff's bankruptcy filing. 2

1

Case 3:08-cv-00727-SI

Document 15-2

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 1 of 1