Darrell Greenland v. Bonanza Trade And Supply

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Complaint

C.D. Cal.August 5, 2016

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR 1 Steven D. Moore (SBN 290875) smoore@kilpatricktownsend.com Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 273 4741 Erwin Cena (SBN 272960) ecena@kilpatricktownsend.com Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 12730 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 350-6162 Steven C. Sereboff (SBN 156731) ssereboff@socalip.com SoCal IP Law Group LLP 310 N. Westlake Blvd., Suite 120 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Tel: (805) 230-1356 Attorneys for Defendant Bonanza Trade & Supply UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION Darrell Greenland, Plaintiff, v. Bonanza Trade & Supply, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Date: September 12, 2016 Time: 1:30 pm Ctrm.: 14 Judge: Hon. Beverly Reid O’Connell Complaint Filed: June 27, 2016 Trial Date: N/A Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 12, 2016 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Beverly Reid O’Connell, Defendant Bonanza Trade & Supply (“Defendant”) will and hereby does move the Court for an order dismissing Plaintiff Darrell Greenland’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint for Patent Infringement filed on June 27, 2016 (“Complaint”). This motion to dismiss is brought because Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for relief for any alleged direct infringement, the only type of infringement Plaintiff alleges. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support, all pleadings and other papers filed and court orders entered in the above-captioned action, and upon such other matters as may be presented to or considered by the Court. This motion is made following the conference of counsel, pursuant to Standing Order 5.b. and L.R. 7-3, which took place on July 27, 2016. DATED: August 5, 2016 /s/ Steven D. Moore Steven D. Moore Attorneys for Defendant Bonanza Trade & Supply Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that on August 5, 2016, I filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT to via the Court’s ECF Notification System, causing a copy to be served upon the following counsel of record: Patrick F. Bright WAGNER, ANDERSON & BRIGHT, PC 3541 Ocean View Boulevard Glendale, California 91208 Tel: (818) 249-9300 Fax: (818) 249-9335 E-mail: pbright@brightpatentlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Darrell Greenland DATED: August 5, 2016 By: /s/ Steven D. Moore Steven D. Moore Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR Steven D. Moore (SBN 290875) smoore@kilpatricktownsend.com Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 273 4741 Erwin Cena (SBN 272960) ecena@kilpatricktownsend.com Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 12730 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 350-6162 Steven C. Sereboff (SBN 156731) ssereboff@socalip.com SoCal IP Law Group LLP 310 N. Westlake Blvd., Suite 120 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Tel: (805) 230-1356 Attorneys for Defendant Bonanza Trade & Supply UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION Darrell Greenland, Plaintiff, v. Bonanza Trade & Supply, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Date: September 12, 2016 Time: 1:30 pm Ctrm.: 14 Judge: Hon. Beverly Reid O’Connell Complaint Filed: June 27, 2016 Trial Date: N/A Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Legal Standard Regarding Motions to Dismiss .................................................. 1 II. Plaintiff’s Complaint Should Be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim ........... 2 A. Plaintiff’s Direct Infringement Allegations Are Deficient Under the Supreme Court’s Twombly / Iqbal Standard ............................................. 2 B. Form 18 Can No Longer Be Relied Upon to Plead Direct Infringement ...... 6 III. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 7 Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Asghari-Kamrani v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 2:15-cv-478, 2016 WL 1253533 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2016) .......................................................... 5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................ passim Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., No. 15 C 10746, 2016 WL 2866134 .................................................................................................... 4 Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., No. 15-cv-05469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) ........................................................... 4 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................ passim Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................... 2 Global Tech LED, LLC v. Every Watt Matters, LLC, No. 15-cv-61933- BLOOM/Valle, slip op. (S.D. Fla. May 19, 2016), ECF No. 50 ............................. 5 Incom Corp. v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 2:15-cv-03011-PSG- MRWx, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71319 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) .................... 4, 6, 7 Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2014) ........................................................................... 3 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................................................ 3 Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. SACV 11-1681 DOC (ANx), 2012 WL 1835680 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2012) .......................................................... 4 Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) ................................................................. 5 Ruby Sands LLC v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Texas, No. 2:15-CV-1955-JRG, 2016 WL 3542430 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2016) ......................................................... 7 Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR iii Telesign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-2106-PSG (SS) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016), ECF No. 39 ....................................................................................... 4 W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................... 2 Other Authorities FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a) ........................................................................................................ 6 FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2) .................................................................................................... 2 FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) .................................................................................................. 1 FED. R. CIV. P. 84 ....................................................................................................... 6, 7 Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR 1 On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff Darrell Greenland (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint in this action alleging direct infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,119,676 (“the ’676 patent”). The allegations of direct infringement in the Complaint are wholly conclusory and merely formulaic recitations of elements of the legal principles with no factual support, and thus, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Supreme Court’s Twombly / Iqbal pleading standards. The Complaint includes a mere nine paragraphs that: (1) fail to identify any specific claims of the ’676 patent that are alleged to be infringed, (2) fail to provide facts linking the features of alleged infringing product to the claims of the ’676 patent, and (3) fail to include a complete copy of the ’676 patent as an exhibit. Recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing Form 18 preclude Plaintiff from reliance on a previously existing safe harbor for his barebones Complaint, and Plaintiff’s allegations of direct infringement are insufficient as a matter of law. For these reasons, and as explained in more detail below, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed. I. Legal Standard Regarding Motions to Dismiss Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires dismissal at the pleading stage of any claim for relief for which the pleading “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR 2 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged…The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A plaintiff has an “obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief,’” which “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. And “the court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994); see also W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). II. Plaintiff’s Complaint Should Be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim A. Plaintiff’s Direct Infringement Allegations Are Deficient Under the Supreme Court’s Twombly / Iqbal Standard The direct infringement allegations in the Complaint are largely devoid of any facts and fail to give the required “fair notice of what the … claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” as required by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff simply provides conclusory allegations that amount to not much more than: “Defendant infringes.” Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR 3 As explained below, such conclusory allegations fail to meet the requisite pleading standards. First, the Complaint does not identify which of the 17 claims of the ’676 patent Defendant is accused of infringing. “It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted). Without this basic information, Defendant is left to guess as to which claims it is being accused of infringing. This failure alone warrants dismissal of the Complaint. See, e.g., Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 797, 799, 803-04 (E.D. Va. 2014) (providing that in patent infringement matters, the Twombly pleading standard requires a complaint that “recites the specific claim or claims [of the patent] which are alleged to be infringed”). Second, the Complaint fails to provide any facts related to the allegedly infringing activities and why they allegedly satisfy the elements of the patent claims at issue, which is not surprising since the Complaint does not even identify a single specific claim that supposedly is infringed. In fact, the Complaint does not even provide a threadbare description of the alleged infringing features as linked to the elements of the claims of the ’676 patent: it instead provides no such description. For example, the Complaint is devoid of any facts related to the features of the accused product, any facts related to the elements of the ’676 patent, and any facts Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR 4 articulating how the accused product’s features allegedly meet the elements of any claim of the ’676 patent. This court has acknowledged that “more than nam[ing] a product and baldly conclud[ing] that it infringes a patent” which belongs to a plaintiff is needed. See Incom Corp. v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 2:15-cv-03011-PSG-MRWx, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71319, at 3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016); see also Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. SACV 11-1681 DOC (ANx), 2012 WL 1835680, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2012) (bare allegations that Defendant is infringing by making, using, or selling technology that infringes Plaintiff’s patent are too conclusory under Iqbal and Twombly). Numerous courts have dismissed similarly deficient patent infringement complaints for failing to meet the Twombly / Iqbal pleading standards for the same reason - including dismissal of complaints alleging more facts than what is included in the present Complaint. See, e.g., Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Telesign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-2106-PSG (SS) at 1, 7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016), ECF No. 39; Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., No. 15-cv-05469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545, at *1, 3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff “recite[d] only some of the elements of the sole asserted claim, and provide[d] only a threadbare description of the alleged abilities of the accused device” without “specifically link[ing] this description to claim 1”); Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., No. 15 C 10746, 2016 WL 2866134, at *4 to *8 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2016) (even Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR 5 though amended complaint included a table asserting how the accused products allegedly practiced each of claim 1’s limitations, factual allegations were insufficient with respect to at least two claim limitations and granting motion to dismiss); Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) (granting motion to dismiss where “Plaintiff makes no attempt to relate any [of] their factual assertions with any of the asserted claims”); Asghari-Kamrani v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 2:15-cv-478, 2016 WL 1253533, at *3-4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2016) (granting motion to dismiss where complaint failed to specify which features of accused website corresponded to two claim limitations); and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Global Tech LED, LLC v. Every Watt Matters, LLC, No. 15-cv-61933-BLOOM/Valle, slip op. at 5-7 (S.D. Fla. May 19, 2016) , ECF No. 50 (granting motion to dismiss where complaint “simply does not plead the elements of any representative claim or specify any claim requirements”). Third, the Complaint fails to attach a complete version of the asserted patent as an Exhibit to the Complaint. Both the as-served copy of the Complaint and Exhibits and the electronically available version available through PACER include only the cover page of the ’676 patent. Such a deficient attachment is further illustrative of the deficiencies of the Complaint as a whole. All the Complaint does is (a) identify the existence of the ’676 patent and (b) identify an accused product. (See generally Complaint.) This is the extent of the Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR 6 facts alleged in the Complaint - facts alone that are deficient under the “plausibility” standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal. “Merely naming a product and providing a conclusory statement that it infringes a patent is insufficient to meet the ‘plausibility’ standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal.” Incom Corp. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71319, at 3 (citing Medsquire LLC v. Spring Medical Sys., Inc., No. 2:11-cv-04504- JHN-PLA, 2011 WL 4101093, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011)). In sum, the Complaint fails to provide the necessary factual allegations to sufficiently plead claims of direct infringement, and these deficiencies require dismissal for failure to state a claim for direct infringement. B. Form 18 Can No Longer Be Relied Upon to Plead Direct Infringement Until recently, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 (“Rule 84”) provided that forms such as Form 18, which was applicable to patent infringement cases, “suffice” to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a). FED. R. CIV. P. 84 (abrogated). Prior to the most recent amendments to the Federal Rules, courts struggled with how to reconcile the Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly and Iqbal and the brevity suggested in Form 18. See, e.g., Incom Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71319, at 2-3 (citing In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation, 681 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). However, the most recent amendments to the Federal Rules took effect on December 1, 2015 and abrogated both Rule 84 and Form 18. Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR 7 Thus, “Form 18 no longer provides a safe harbor for pleading direct infringement.” Incom Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71319, at 3; Ruby Sands LLC v. Am. Nat'l Bank of Texas, No. 2:15-CV-1955-JRG, 2016 WL 3542430, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2016) (granting defendants’ motion to dismiss). In fact, the abrogation of Form 18 and Rule 84 puts to rest the issue courts wrestled with related to the brevity of Form 18 and Twombly / Iqbal: no longer are the barebones or threadbare recitations of allegations mirroring the language of Form 18 sufficient; instead, what is required are sufficient facts that, if accepted as true, establish a right to relief, as Twombly and Iqbal require. As described above, under Twombly / Iqbal, Plaintiff’s outdated, “Form 18-like” Complaint is insufficient to meet the standards for pleading direct infringement, and thus should be dismissed. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s direct infringement allegations fail to allege facts sufficient to establish a claim for relief. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that its motion to dismiss be granted, and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DATED: August 5, 2016 Respectfully submitted, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP By: /s/ Steven D. Moore Steven D. Moore (SBN 290875) Attorneys for Defendant Bonanza Trade & Supply Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 2:16-cv-0683-BRO-JPR 8 Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 1 - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION Darrell Greenland, Plaintiff, v. Bonanza Trade & Supply, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-04683 BRO-JPR [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Date: September 12, 2016 Time: 1:30 pm Ctrm.: 14 Judge: Hon. Beverly Reid O’Connell Complaint Filed: June 27, 2016 Trial Date: N/A Upon review of Defendant Bonanza Trade and Supply’s (Bonanza’s) Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion, and arguments raised at the hearing on the Motion, and good cause appearing therefore, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED because Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-2 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 2 - SO ORDERED. DATED: ____________________ HON. BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Case 2:16-cv-04683-BRO-JPR Document 18-2 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:67