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
{CLIENT FILES\30625\7\00094979.DOC} - 1 -
DEFENDANT IMR CONTRACTOR CORP.’S REPLY BRIEF RE: MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DISMISS / STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 08-CV-3447 CW
PAUL V. SIMPSON, BAR NO. 83878
psimpson@sgilaw.com
TIMOTHY P. O'DONNELL, BAR NO. 185492
todonnell@sgilaw.com
SIMPSON, GARRITY & INNES
Professional Corporation
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 950
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Telephone: (650) 615-4860
Fax: (650) 615-4861
Attorneys for Defendant
IMR Contractor Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
GREGORY HALL, FAUSTO AGUILAR,
GONZALO AGUILAR, CHARLES CHILTON,
FELIX CORTES, OMAR FRANCO, DOUGLAS
GIVENS, ROBERT IVY, QUINCY MOUTON,
LUIS OSUNA, RICHARD RANKIN, HECTOR
RODRIGUEZ, MARTIN SANDOVAL, HENRY
TAYLOR, LLOYD THIBEAUX, MICHAEL
BROWN, ASTRIAN CAEL, ARNULFO
CARRANZA-RIVAS, APOLINAR CORNEJO,
ROY EDWARDS, VICTOR HAMPTON, RANDY
KEYS, ANDRE LARRIMORE, TERRY
MACKEY, DOUGLAS TURNER, JEFF WEST,
ROBERT WHITE, MARQUEZ BOYD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, AIMCO CAPITAL,
INC., FORTNEY & WEYGANDT, INC., IMR
CONTRACTOR CORPORATION, BAY
BUILDING SERVICES, BAY AREA
CONSTRUCTION FRAMERS, INC. and DOES 1-
50,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 08-CV-3447 CW
DEFENDANT IMR CONTRACTOR
CORPORATION’S REPLY BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO
DISMISS AND/OR MOTION TO
STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
[FRCP 12(e), 12(b)(6), 12(f)]
DATE: September 18, 2008
TIME: 2:00 p.m.
JUDGE: Hon. Claudia Wilkin
ROOM: Courtroom 2, 4th Floor
Case 4:08-cv-03447-CW Document 9 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 1 of 3
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
{CLIENT FILES\30625\7\00094979.DOC} - 2 -
DEFENDANT IMR CONTRACTOR CORP.’S REPLY BRIEF RE: MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DISMISS / STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 08-CV-3447 CW
I. ARGUMENT
A. In Light Of Plaintiffs’ Concessions, The Court Should Grant The Motion For
A More Definite Statement
Defendant IMR Contractor Corporation (“IMR” or “Defendant”) filed the present motion
seeking a more definite statement with respect to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.
Defendant sought a more definite statement for each cause of action with respect to the identity of
the plaintiff or plaintiffs asserting the cause of action and the identity of the defendant against
whom the cause of action is asserted. Additionally, Defendant sought a more definite statement
regarding the nature of the eighth through thirteenth causes of action.
Plaintiffs’ do not oppose the request for a more definite statement with respect to the
identities of the Plaintiffs making the claim and the Defendants against whom the claims are made.
Based on Plaintiffs’ concession, the Court should order Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to
specify the names of the Plaintiff(s) asserting each cause of action and the names of the
Defendant(s) against whom each cause of action is asserted.
With respect to the tenth through thirteenth causes of action, Plaintiffs’ opposition
characterizes these as Tameny claims instead of direct statutory or constitutional claims.
Defendant does not dispute that California law recognizes tortious termination claims. However,
as currently pled, it is not clear that these are Tameny claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs should be
required to amend these causes of action to make clear they are Tameny claims.
B. Plaintiffs Concede That The Eighth And Ninth Causes Of Action Should Be
Dismissed And/Or Stricken
Alternatively, Defendant’s motion seeks the dismissal and/or striking of the eighth through
thirteenth causes of action. Given Plaintiffs’ explanation with respect to the tenth through
thirteenth causes of action, Defendant recognizes that leave to amend, and not dismissal, is
appropriate for these claims. As for the eighth and ninth causes of action, Plaintiffs concede that
these claims should be dismissed and/or stricken. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss
Case 4:08-cv-03447-CW Document 9 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 2 of 3
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
{CLIENT FILES\30625\7\00094979.DOC} - 3 -
DEFENDANT IMR CONTRACTOR CORP.’S REPLY BRIEF RE: MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DISMISS / STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 08-CV-3447 CW
and/or strike with respect to the eighth and ninth causes of action should be granted without leave
to amend.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant IMR Contractor Corporation requests that the Court
order Plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement and specify which Plaintiffs assert each cause
of action and against which defendant the cause of action is breach. Further, a more definite
statement is requested with respect to the eight through thirteenth causes of action to specify that
these are Tameny claims and not direct statutory and/or constitutional claims. Finally, Defendant
requests that the Court dismiss and/or strike the eighth and ninth causes of action.
Date: September 3, 2008 Respectfully submitted,
SIMPSON, GARRITY & INNES
Professional Corporation
By: /s/ Timothy P. O’Donnell
PAUL V. SIMPSON
TIMOTHY P. O'DONNELL
Attorneys for Defendant
IMR CONTRACTOR CORPORATION
Case 4:08-cv-03447-CW Document 9 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 3 of 3
