Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01689/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01689-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 FILED 2 

3 OCT 1 4 2014 

4 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES HAMILTON, an individual, I CASE NO. 14cv1689-WQH (NLS) 

11 Plaintiff, 1 ORDER 

vs. 12 LINCOLN MARINERS 

13 ASSOCIATES LIMITE~\.dba

MARINERS COVE APAKTMENT 

HOMES, a limited liability company; 
 14 AIMCO-GP INC, a corporation' MARIBEL ROBLES, an individual; 

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 

16 Defendant. 

1711 HAYES, Judge: 

18 The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. (ECF 

19 No.3). 

I. Background 

21 On June 11,2014, Plaintiff James Hamilton commenced this action by filing the 

22 Complaint in San Diego County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 9). On July 17, 2014, 

23 Defendants Lincoln Mariners Associates Limited, dba Mariners Cove Apartment 

2411 Homes ("Mariners Cove"), Aimco-GP, Inc. ("Aimco"), and Maribel Robles 

II (collectively "Defendants") removed to this Court on the basis of federal question 

2611 jurisdiction. (ECF No.1 at 2). On July 24, 2014, Defendants filed the Motion to 

2711 Dismiss. (ECF No.3). On August 19,2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 

28114). On August 26,2014, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No.5). 

- 1 - 14cv1689-WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 11
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

J 

1 II. Allegations of the Complaint 

2 Since February 2012, Plaintiff has been a resident of 4330 West Point Loma 

3 II Boulevard, leased by Mariners Cove. Plaintiff has been diagnosed by the Veterans 

4 II Administration with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") "with a 100% disability 

II rating" and "degenerative arthritis, bUlging discs, and chronic pain in the lower lumbar 

6 II ofthe back and spine" with a disability rating of 50%. (ECF No. 1 at 12). "Plaintiff 

7 notified Defendants ofhis disabilities in February, 2012. He later reminded them of 

8 his disabilities, including, but not limited to, the date ofapproval ofhis parking space 

9 assignment, and at the times Plaintiff made complaints about the dumpster noise, 

dumpster smell, and parking lot traffic. Id. 

11 When Plaintiff first signed a lease with Mariners Cove, he requested a three 

12 bedroom apartment. Plaintiffwas told he would be placed on a waiting list and would 

13 II be notified when a three bedroom apartment became available. Plaintiff later learned 

14 II that a three bedroom apartment had become available, but he witnessed new tenants 

II moving into that apartment. "Defendants then disclosed that there was not, in fact, a 

16 II waiting list, and that the prior representation was false." Id. at 12. When Plaintiff 

17 II complained to corporate customer relations about this "false representation," "the 

18 II necessity to have the dumpster relocated," and his disability, Defendants failed to 

19 accommodate him and instead retaliated. Id. 

Plaintiff also complained to Mariners Cove about electrical, plumbing, and 

21 II mechanical violations in the building, "unsatisfactory disabled access (raised sidewalks 

22 II and limited parking spaces), substandard housing conditions, excessive noise 

23 II (especially around the dumpster), fire hazards regarding excessive leaves and tree 

24 II debris in the gutter systems and on the roofs," and lack of appropriate security. Id. at 

II 13. Plaintiff also complained about landscaping and lawn maintenance activities "as 

2611 early as 6:30 a.m.," but "Mariners Cove has refused to limit the landscaping and 

2711 maintenance activities to reasonable hours." Id. at 14. 

28 II Plaintiffalso complained about other tenants violating their leases by exceeding 

- 2 - 14cv1689-WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 2 of 11
1 maximum permitted pet provisions, allowing animals to "wander unchecked and 

2 unleashed in the common areas," owning dog breeds not permitted on the property, and 

3 II smoking cigarettes and marijuana. Id. at 13-14. Mariners Cove has ignored all of 

4 II these complaints. 

511 "On September 1, 2013, a theft occurred at the main leasing office where the 

6 II perpetrator stole residents' files (includingPlaintifrs). However, Mariners Cove failed 

711 to notify Plaintiff ofthe breach ofsecurity and theft ofPlaintifrs personal information 

8 II for twenty (20) days, when a notice dated September 20, 2013 was finally provided." 

9 II Id. at 13. In order to accommodate his PTSD, Plaintiff installed security cameras at his 

10 II unit. "In response to Plaintiffs installation of security cameras to monitor his door 

11 II stoop, stairs, and parking space, Mariners Cove, including, but not limited to Maribel 

1211 Robles, threatened and harassed him with legal action and eviction." Id. at 15. 

13 II Plaintiff has also been denied requests to install a tarp over his balcony and a 

1411 washer/dryer in his unit, even though others tenants have been permitted to do so. 

15 On March 18, 2014, Mariners Cove (and specifically, Maribel 

Robles) provided Plaintiff notice that his lease would not be renewed 

16 without J?roviding any explanation, even though he had been a tenant in 

excess 01two (2) years, and entitled by law to be offered a renewal ofhis 

17 lease under similar terms pursuant to San Diego Municipal Ordinance § 

98.0701 et seq. On May 6, 2014, Plaintiffwas given a notice ofintent to 

18 perform a pre-move out inspection. Although Plaintiff also fulJy paid his 

rent for tne month of June 2014" MariberRobles issued a Three Day z 19 Notice to Pay Rent or QUIt on June 4 2014. Also on June 4,. 2014, 

Plaintiff was finally' prOVIded a renewal of his lease, but only after the 

20 expiration of the prior lease, and thus forcing Plaintiff into a month to 

month lease with a $300.00 increase until such time as he acce.pted the 

21 lease renewal. Plaintiff was told that he would be assessed fees iflie failed 

to give at least 60 days notice of his intent not to renew his lease. 

22 

Plaintiff has also complained to Mariners Cove that the tenants in 

23 apartment 4332 F continue to create excessive noise ~ermit their children 

to play outside unsup'ervised (which results in the chIldren playing "ding 

24 dong aitch), playing in the parking lot area and around the dumpsters, an 

of which exacerbate Plamtiffs PTSD disability. Despite PlaintIffs 

25 repeated complaints Mariners Cove refused to take any action, and 

instead issued to Plaintiff a Non-Renewal/Termination Notice (in

26 violation of San Diego Municipal Ordinance § 98.0701 et seq.). 

27 During Plaintiffs tenancy, the premises have not been in a habitable 

condition, includin~, but not lImited to" dry rot and damage to the stairs 

28 leading to PlaintiffS apartment water oeing shut off by Mariners Cove 

without reasonable notice to Plaintiff, mold on the premises, termite 

- 3 - 14cv1689-WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 3 of 11
1 II damage, bird feces that is permitted to accumulate, exterior door that does 

not seal, and unreasonable and noxious odors that emanate from dumpster 2 located outside ofPlaintiffs apartment. 

3 Id. at 15. 

4 II The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: disability discrimination 

5 II in violation of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. section 

611 3604(f)(2)(A) and (C) (third claim); violation of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 

711 U.S.C. section 3604(f)(3)(B), for failure to make reasonable accommodations (fifth 

8 claim); violation of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. section 3617, for retaliation (sixth claim); 

9 violation of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. section 3604( c), for unlawful statements (seventh 

10 claim); and thirteen state-law claims. 

11 III. Discussion 

12 A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard 

13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for "failure to state 

14 a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of 

15" Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must 

16 II contain ... a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled 

1711 to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where 

18 " the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable 

19" legal theory. SeeBalistreriv. PacificaPoliceDep 't, 901 F.2d696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

20 " "[A] plaintiff s obligation to provide the 'grounds' ofhis 'entitle [ ment] to relief 

21 II requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation ofthe elements 

2211 ofa cause ofaction will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 

23 II (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a»). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must 

2411 contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is 

25 " plausible on its face. '" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 

26" 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

27 II content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

28 II liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citation omitted). "[T]he tenet that a court must 

-4- 14cv1689-WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 4 of 11
1 II accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal 

2 II conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by 

3 mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citation omitted). "When there are 

4 well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then 

5 determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. at 679. "In 

6 sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, 

7 II and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim 

811 entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v. US. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962,969 (9th Cir. 

9 2009) (quotations omitted). 

lOB. DisabiliQ' Discrimination and Failure to make Reasonable 

AccommodatIons in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(t)(2)(A) and (C) 1111 (Third and Fifth Claims) 

1211 Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to "support his 

13 II bald conclusion that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, 

14 II or privileges ofthe rental ofhis unit." (ECF No. 3-2 at 18). Defendants contend that 

15 II Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts demonstrating that Defendant discriminated 

16 II against Plaintiff becausePlaintiffis a member ofa protected class. Defendants contend 

17 II that Plaintiff has alleged no facts demonstrating discrimination against someone 

18 II associated with Plaintiff. Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to 

19 II identify a reasonable accommodation, communications with Defendants regarding a 

20 II possible accommodation, or reasons why those accommodations were necessary. 

21 II Plaintiff asserts that he has alleged four pages of specific facts that show 

22 II Defendants discriminated against him in the terms, conditions, or privileges of his 

23 II rental unit. Plaintiff also asserts that he has alleged that he requested a three bedroom 

24 II apartment and requested to be moved away from the dumpster in order to accommodate 

25 II his disability. 

2611 42 U.S.C. sections 3604(f)(2)(A) and (C) make it unlawful to "discriminate 

27 II against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges ofsale or rental ofa dwelling, 

28 II or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because 

- 5 - 14cv1689-WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 5 of 11
1 " ofhandicap of.... that person; or .... any person associated with that person." 42 U.S.C. 

21! § 3604(f)(2)(A) and (C). "Discrimination" includes: 

3 (A) a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person reasonable modifications ofexisting premises occupied or tobe occupied 4 by such p'erson if such modifications may be necessary to afford such 

p'erson fUll enjoyment ofthe premises except that, in the case of a rental, 5 the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission for 

a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior ofthe premises 
 6 
 to the condition that existed oefore the modification, reasonable wear and 

tear excepted. 
 7 

(B) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, 
 8 
 practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to 

afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling .... 9 

42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A) and (B). The Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit applies 10 II 

Title VII discrimination analysis in examining FHA discrimination claims. Gamble v. 

1111 

City ofEscondido, 104 F3d 300, 305 (9th Cir. 1997). Under the McDonnell Doug/as 1211 

burden-shifting framework applicable in Title VII and FHA discrimination cases, "the 13 .. 

Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case." Id. 14 .. 

In the case ofintentional discrimination, the "plaintiff carries the initial burden 

15 

of showing actions taken by the [defendant] from which one can infer, ifsuch actions 

16 n 

remain unexplained, that it is more likely than not that such actions were 'based on a 

1711 

discriminatory criterion .... '" Furnco Const. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978) 

1811 

(applying McDonnell Douglas analysis in Title VII context). In the case of an alleged 

1911 

failure to make reasonable accommodations, "aplaintiff must prove all ofthe following 

20 II 

elements: (1) that the plaintiff or his associate is handicapped within the meaning of 

21 II 

42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); (2) that the defendant knew or should reasonably be expected to 

22 .. know ofthe handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to 

2311 

afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enj oy the dwelling; (4) 

2411 

that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that defendant refused to make the 

2511 

requested accommodation." DuBois v. Ass 'n ofApartment Owners of2987Kalakaua, 

26 " 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 27 .. 

The Complaint alleges that Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff, "aperson 

28 •• 

with a disability, in the terms, conditions, or privileges ofsale or rental of a dwelling, 

14cv1689-WQH (NLS) - 6­

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 6 of 11
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

II 

1 " or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because 

211 of Plaintiffs disability .... " (ECF No. 1 at 17). The Complaint alleges that this 

3 II discrimination was "intentional, willful, and taken in disregard of the rights of 

411 Plaintiff." [d. at 18. The Complaint fails to specify what Defendants did that 

II constitutes disability discrimination in violation of the FHA or which disabilities 

611 formed the basis of Defendants' discrimination. The Complaint fails to allege 

7 II sufficient factual matter to permit the inference that Defendants actions were more 

8 II likely than not motivated by discriminatory criteria, specifically, that Plaintiff was 

9 II denied privileges given to other residents because ofhis disabilities. Cf Pers. Adm'r 

II ofMass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256,279-80 (1979) (holding that equal protection clause 

1111 intentional discrimination requires "a particular course of action at least in part 

1211 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable group"). 

13 II The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for intentional disability 

14 II discrimination. 

As to the alleged failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, the Complaint 

16 II alleges that "Plaintiff complained to corporate customer relations regarding his 

17 II disability, the request for the three bedroom apartment .... and the necessity to have the 

18 II dumpster relocated." (ECF No. 1 at 12). The Complaint alleges that "Mariners Cove 

19 II failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, but instead engaged in retaliatory 

II conduct against Plaintiff." [d. at 13. The Complaint fails to allege facts demonstrating 

21 II that accommodations were necessary for a particular disability or that the requested 

22 II accommodations would be reasonable. The Complaint also fails to allege facts 

23 II demonstrating that Plaintiff requested accommodations based on his disability. The 

24 Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for violation of the FHA for 

intentional disability discrimination or for disability discrimination in the failure to 

26 accommodate Plaintiff's disabilities. 

27 Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff s third claim and fifth claims is granted. 

28 II C. Retaliation in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617 (Sixth Claim) 

- 7 - 14cv1689-WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 7 of 11
11 

1 Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to allege that he engaged in any 

2 protected activity. Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to allege that 

3 II Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff s protected activity. 

4 Defendants contend that Plaintiffs allegations show that the alleged retaliation was in 

5 response to Plaintiffs "unilateral" installation of security cameras on Defendants' 

6 property and Plaintiff s failure to renew his annual lease within a required time. 

7 Plaintiff asserts that he alleged both specific requests for accommodations and specific 

811 adverse housing consequences as a result of these requests for accommodations. 

9 II Plaintiff asserts that there is a causal link between the two, supporting a claim for 

1 0 retaliation. 

42 U.S.C. section 3617 provides that "[i]t shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, 

12 II threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of 

13 II having exercised or enjoyed, or on account ofhis having aided or encouraged any other 

14 II person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 

1511 3604, 3605, or 3606 ofthis title." 42 U.S.C. § 3617. To state a claim for retaliation 

1611 under the Fair Housing Act, the plaintiff must show: (1) he engaged in protected 

1711 activity; (2) adverse action causally linked to the protected activity; and (3) resulting 

1811 damage. San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 477 (9th Cir. 

1911 1998). 

20 II The Complaint alleges that "Defendants coerced, intimidated, threatened, or 

21 II interfered with Plaintiff in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having 

22 II exercised or enjoyed any right granted or protected by the provisions of the Fair 

23 II Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617." (ECF No.1 at 20). The Complaint 

2411 further alleges that "[i]n response to Plaintiffs installation of security cameras to 

25 II monitor his door stoop, stairs, and parking space, Mariners Cove, including, but not 

26 II limited to Maribel Robels, threatened and harassed him with legal action and eviction." 

2711 Id. at 15. The Complaint alleges that although Plaintiff received a notice that his lease 

28 II would not be renewed "without providing any explanation," he was later provided a 

14cv1689-WQH (NLS) - 8­

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 8 of 11
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

9 

111 renewal ofhis lease, but "only after the expiration ofthe prior lease, and thus forcing 

211 Plaintiff into a month to month lease with a $300.00 increase until such time as he 

3 II accepted the lease renewal." Id. 

41\ The allegations supporting Plaintiff's sixth claim are a "[t]hreadbare recital[] of 

II the elements of a cause ofaction, supported by mere conclusory statements .... " Iqbal, 

611 556 U.S. at 678. The factual allegations found elsewhere in the Complaint are also 

7 1\ insufficient to state an FHA retaliation claim. The Complaint fails to sufficiently 

8 II identify a protected activity that forms the basis for Plaintiff's retaliation claim. There 

is no authority for the proposition that Plaintiff's unilateral installation of security 

cameras on leased property is protected activity, i.e., a "right granted or protected by 

1111 section 3603,3604,3605, or 3606" ofthe FHA." 42 U.S.C. § 3617. As a result ofthe 

1211 failure to identify a protected activity, the Complaint does not adequately allege an 

13 1\ adverse action that is causally linked to a protected activity. The Complaint fails to 

141\ identify any other protected activity. The Court concludes that the Complaint fails to 

1\ state a retaliation claim under the FHA. 

16 II Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' sixth claim is granted. 

17 " D. Unlawful Statements in Violation of42 U.S.C. § 3604( c) (Seventh Claim) 

18 " Defendants contend that the Complaint fails to identify any statement by 

19 II Defendants indicating an intention to make a preference against disabilities or to 

II discriminate on the basis ofdisability. Plaintiff does not address the sufficiency ofhis 

21 1\ seventh claim in opposition. 

2211 Section 3604(c) makes it unlawful to "make, print, or publish, or cause to be 

23 II made, printed or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the 

24 II sale or rental ofa dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination 

II based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an 

2611 intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination." 42 U.S.C. § 

2711 3604(c). 

2811 The Complaint lacks any factual allegations to support this claim. The only 

- 9- 14cv1689-WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 9 of 11
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II alleged statement related to "the sale or rental of a dwelling" is the oral promise to 

2 II place Plaintiff on a waiting list for a three bedroom apartment. However, this statement 

3 II does not "indicate any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on .... 

4 II handicap .... " 42 U.S.C. § 3604( c). The Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state an 

II unlawful statements claim under the FHA. 

6 II Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' seventh claim is granted. 

7 II E. State Law Claims 

8 II The Complaint's remaining claims assert violations ofCalifornia law: violation 

911 ofCalifornia's Fair Employment and Housing Act, violation ofCalifornia Civil Code 

II section 51, intentional infliction ofemotional distress, violation ofC ali forni a Business 

11 II and Professions Code section 17200, breach of the warranty of habitability (both 

1211 statutory and common law), breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, violation of 

13 II California Civil Code section 1942.5 et seq., negligence, constructive eviction, breach 

14 II ofcontract, negligent maintenance ofthe premises, and breach ofthe implied covenant 

II of good faith and fair dealing. This case was removed to this Court on the basis of 

16 II federal question jurisdiction. The notice of removal only states that this Court has 

1711 supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. (ECF No.1 at 3). 

18 II The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute provides: "[i]n any civil action of 

19 II which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have 

II supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action 

21 II within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy 

2211 under Article III of the United States Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A district 

23 II court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if: 

24 (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, 

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over 

which the district court has original jurisdiction 26 

(3). th~ 4istrict court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 27 JUrISdIctIOn, or 

28 (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for 

- 10- 14cv1689-WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 10 of 11
1 declining jurisdiction. 

2 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Having dismissed all federal claims asserted by Plaintiff against 

3 II Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law 

411 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). See San Pedro Hotel Co., 159 F.3d at 478. 

5 " IV. Conclusion 

6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF 

7 II No.3). The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. No later than thirty (30) 

8 II days from the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to amend the 

9 II Complaint accompanied by a proposed first amended complaint. The first amended 

10 II complaint must be complete in itself and may not incorporate by reference prior 

11 versions of the complaint or other filings in this action. If Plaintiff does not file a 

12 motion for leave to amend, this case shall remain closed or be remanded to San Diego 

13 II County Superior Court, where this case was originally filed . .. 14 

151 DATED: /,;,4-rdr 

16 

17 United States DWIct Judge 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 11 - 14cv1689-WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:14-cv-01689-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 11 of 11