Opinion
No. C-13-0228 EMC
01-28-2014
ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO
AMEND
The Court held a further case management conference on January 23, 2014. During that conference, the Court indicated that it needed to review the procedural history in the case to determine how best to proceed. Having reviewed the record, the Court hereby gives Plaintiffs leave to file a motion to amend their complaint.
The Court further instructs or advises Plaintiffs as follows: (1) Plaintiffs should attach to their motion to amend a copy of their proposed amended complaint. The proposed amended complaint should contain only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiffs are] entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs' prior pleadings - more than 60 and 50 pages respectively -were not appropriate given the relative lack of complexity in this case. (2) Plaintiffs should not include any claim in the proposed amended complaint that the Court has already dismissed with prejudice. The amended complaint shall only include those claims for which this Court has denied a motion to dismiss plus those which are new (which the Court has not addressed). Further, Plaintiffs should not include any claim in the proposed amended complaint if it is not viable based on the Court's analysis in its prior orders (e.g., suing Ms. Ku in her individual capacity for a Title II ADA violation). See Docket No. 75 (Order at 2 n.4). (3) Because Plaintiffs continue to assert IFP status, the Court will conduct a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 prior to ordering service and any response to the proposed amended complaint.
Of course, this does not mean that Plaintiffs should allege facts in a conclusory fashion. Under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), "a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations [but] it must plead 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added); see also Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that "[p]lausibility requires pleading facts, as opposed to conclusory allegations or the 'formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action'").
The case management conference set for February 6, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., is hereby rescheduled for March 6, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint case management conference statement shall be filed by February 27, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge