Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LaRELL FRANKLIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLSTATE CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-1909 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND; VACATING

HEARING

(Docket Nos. 33, 41, 43, 45)

Before the Court are four motions: (1) the motion filed May 2, 2006 by defendants

EFI Global, Inc. and George S. Alboff seeking dismissal of the claims asserted against

them, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, a

more definite statement, pursuant to Rule 12(e); (2) the motion filed May 22, 2006 by

defendants Allstate Corporation, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company,

Allstate Property and Casualty Company, Kathie Pardi, Richard K. Reney, Andrew

Aspergren, and Nicki Nicolai seeking dismissal or a more definite statement, pursuant to

Rules 8, 12(b)(6), and 12(e); (3) the motion filed May 22, 2006 by defendants Accredited

Home Lenders, Inc. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (jointly, “Lender Defendants”)

seeking dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and additionally moving to strike plaintiffs’

punitive damages claim, pursuant to Rule 12(f); and (4) the motion filed May 22, 2006 by

Rust, Armenis & Schwartz and Scott D. Schwartz (“Attorney Defendants”) seeking

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 63 Filed 06/29/06 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

1

 Although neither the Lender Defendants nor the Attorney Defendants expressly

move for a more definite statement, the Lender Defendants contend plaintiffs’ claims “are

largely unintelligible,” (see Lender Defendants’ Motion at 5), and the Attorney Defendants

contend plaintiffs’ “specific allegations against defendants RAS and Schwartz are extremely

difficult to decipher,” (see Attorney Defendants’ Motion at 4).

2

dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).1 Plaintiffs have filed opposition to each motion, to

which defendants, respectively, have replied. Having considered the papers filed in

support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court finds the matters appropriate for

resolution without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and hereby VACATES the July 7,

2006 hearing and rules as follows.

The complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, specifically, that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and that the averments be “simple, concise,

and direct.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 8(e)(1); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d

1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal, pursuant to Rule 8, of 53-page complaint that

“mixe[d] allegations of relevant facts, irrelevant facts, political argument, and legal

argument in a confusing way” and failed to specify which defendants were liable on which

claims). Here, the First Amended Complaint, which is more than 50 pages in length, fails

(1) to identify, with respect to each cause of action, the specific plaintiff(s) and defendant(s)

to which such cause of action pertains; (2) to allege the manner in which each such plaintiff

was injured by each such defendant; and (3) to set forth a nonconclusory factual basis for

the allegations of conspiracy. In addition, the majority of the causes of action asserted are

a confusing jumble of legal theories. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 49-54 (setting forth First Claim for

Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982 and 3604); id. ¶¶ 56-58 (setting forth Third Claim for

California Civil Rights Violations, citing California Constitution, California Civil Code §§ 51

and 52.1, and including allegations of defamation, unfair insurance settlement practices,

breach of contract, and conspiracy to foreclose on home loan); id. ¶¶ 59-60 (setting forth

Fourth Claim for California Insurance Bad Faith and Fraud). “Prolix, confusing complaints

such as the one[ ] plaintiffs filed in this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges.” 

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 63 Filed 06/29/06 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

3

See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179.

Accordingly, 

1. The above-referenced motions are hereby GRANTED to the extent defendants

seek relief based on unintelligibility of the complaint, and the instant action is hereby

DISMISSED in its entirety, with leave to amend to cure the deficiencies noted above. 

2. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint shall be filed no later than July 28, 2006.

3. If an amended complaint is filed, each cause of action shall be based on a single

legal theory, and the subheading of each cause of action shall identify the specific plaintiffs

who are asserting that cause of action and the specific defendants against whom it is

brought.

 This order terminates Docket Nos. 33, 41, 43, and 45.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 63 Filed 06/29/06 Page 3 of 3