Buckey v. County of Los Angeles

6 Citing briefs

  1. First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed February 23, 2012

    In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). Civil rights complaints are to be liberally construed. Buckey, 968 F.2d at 794. The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether it is entitled to offer evidence to support its claims.

  2. Jane Doe v. Medalist Holdings, Inc. et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed June 30, 2017

    What’s more, the conclusory civil conspiracy claim, lacking any supporting allegations of Backpage’s agreement with Richard or any other trafficker, see FAC ¶¶ 5.30-5.32, cannot plausibly allege that Backpage conspired with Richard merely by operating a website available to millions of users, much less that Backpage knew that Richard was abusing Plaintiff or that Plaintiff was being sold for sex. Infra, Section ; see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007) (“a conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified point” does not establish conspiracy); Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992) (complaint must “allege specific facts to support the existence of a conspiracy among the defendants”); Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989) (“allegations of conspiracy must be supported by material facts, not merely conclusory statements”). Section 230 analysis “turns on who was responsible for the specific harmful material at issue, not on whether the service provider was responsible for the general features and mechanisms of the service or other content…that might have also appeared on the service.”

  3. Cross et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

    OPPOSITION/RESPONSE

    Filed March 14, 2019

    6 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................................................ 18, 19 Avenue 6E Investments, LLC v. City of Yuma, 818 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................................ 13 Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................................. 16 Bassette v. City of Oakland, No. C-00-1645 JCS, 2000 WL 33376593 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2000) .................................................... 7 Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................ 16 Boston v. Kitsap Cty., 852 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................................. 10 Buckey v. City of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................................ 25 Cal. Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts, 195 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................................................. 15 Citizens for Quality Educ. San Diego v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., No. 17-CV-1054-BAS-JMA, 2018 WL 828099 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2018) ......................................... 22 City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1978) .............................................................................................................................. 23 The Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................... 12, 14, 15 Case 3:18-cv-06097-EMC Document 69 Filed 03/14/19 Page 4 of 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

  4. Leonard Ward v. California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

    Filed January 20, 2017

    In other words, bare allegations that one defendant ‘conspired’ with another are insufficient.” Jones v. Tozzi, No. 1:05- CV-0148 OWW DLB, 2006 WL 1582311, at *10 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2006) (citing Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 1997); Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992); Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 1989)). The Complaint’s allegations of conspiracy are entirely conclusory.

  5. Lifestream Complete Senior Living Incorporated et al v. Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed September 26, 2016

    I. Standard for a Motion to Dismiss On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “Review is limited to the contents of the complaint.” Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 999 (1992).

  6. Jeffrey Simonek v. City of El Segundo et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 23

    Filed June 6, 2016

    All allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Buckey v. County of Los Angeles ((1992 9th Cir.) 968 Fed.2d 791, 794, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 999, 113 Sup.Ct. 599, 121 L.Ed.2d 536. Generally, the Court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Branch v. Tunnell (1994) 14 F. 3d 449, 453 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1219, 114 Sup.Ct. 2704, 129 L.Ed.2d 832 (overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara (9th Cir. 2002), 307 F. 3d 1119.) IV. THE BURNERS’ MOTION IGNORES A QUANTITY OF FACTS PLEADED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT A CONSPIRACY CAUSE OF ACTION INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF COMMON MOTIVE, FORMA- TION OF THE AGREEMENT, ACTS IN FURTHERANCE. The pleading requirements for conspiracy in the context of a civil rights claim were addressed in Harris v. Roderick (1996) 933 Fd. Supp. 977.