Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03431/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03431-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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 All parties have consented to my jurisdiction,

including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c) for all proceedings.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOANNE ELIZABETH CLEVELAND,

et al.

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COMPASS VISION, INC., et

al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-5642 BZ

Related Case: C07-3431 BZ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE

AND CONTINUING JOINT CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

 Before me are defendants COMPASS VISION, INC. and

NATIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. D/b/a NMS LABS’ (NMS labs)

motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and plaintiffs’ motion to

strike NMS labs’ motion to dismiss.1

 Having reviewed the

papers submitted by both sides, I find no need for argument on

this motion and VACATE the March 19, 2008 hearing. 

Defendants requests for judicial notice of the recent

Case 3:07-cv-03431-BZ Document 63 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 4
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

decisions in Garlick v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. from the

Untied States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Case no. 06 cv 6422 (DMC), December 28, 2007) and in PerezRocha v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from the Commonwealth

Court of Pennsylvania (Case no. 2225 C.D. 2006, October 9,

2007) are GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike NMS labs’ motion to dismiss

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and Civil

Local Rule 3-4(e) because it refers to Garlick, which is

captioned “Not for Publication”, is DENIED. Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure and Local Circuit Rule 32.1(a) provides

that a “court may not prohibit or restrict the citation of

federal . . . orders . . . that have been . . . designated

as . . . ‘not for publication’ . . . and issued on or after

January 1, 2007.” Nor is there anything in the Local Civil

Rules of the District of New Jersey that prevents defendants

from citing the opinion. 

Striking defendants motions is not appropriate under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) either. The reference

to the Garlick order is not a “redundant, immaterial,

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(f). 

Rather, Garlick involves similar claims against some of the

same defendants in the instant action, and is relevant to the

legal issues in this case. During oral argument on

defendants’ motions to dismiss in Wilson v. Compass Vision,

Inc. (C07-3431 BZ, Northern District Court of California), the

related case, I even inquired as to whether the court in

Garlick had ruled on defendants’ motions to dismiss. That no

Case 3:07-cv-03431-BZ Document 63 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 4
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

one has chosen to publish Garlick, either electronically or in

print, does not impact the effect of the ruling. Regardless,

I do not find the holdings in Garlick and Perez-Rocha

persuasive. 

At this stage of the litigation, plaintiffs have pled

sufficient facts to support their claims for emotional

distress damages. Molien v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 27 Cal.3d

916, 925 - 28 (1990); cf. In re Dawson, 390 F.3d 1139 (9th

Cir. 2004). 

Similarly, plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to

defeat the motions to dismiss their claims for punitive

damages. NMS labs argued that plaintiffs must amend their

complaint to show there is a substantial possibility they will

prevail on their punitive damages claims pursuant to

California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13. This

argument, however, was raised for the first time in NMS lab’s

reply memorandum. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S.

871, 894-95 (1990) (it is improper for moving party to

introduce new facts or different legal arguments in reply

memorandum.) As such, I will not consider the argument.

For the reasons set forth in the orders on the motions to

dismiss in Quisenberry v. Compass Vision, et al. from the

Southern District of California (Case No. 07CV1135, November

14, 2007) and in Wilson, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’

motions to dismiss are DENIED. 

The March 5, 2008 joint continued case management 

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-03431-BZ Document 63 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

conference set for both this and Wilson is continued to March

24, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

Dated: February 29, 2008 

 Bernard Zimmerman

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\CLEVELAND V. COMPASS VISION\ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND

STRIKE.FINAL VERSION.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-03431-BZ Document 63 Filed 02/29/08 Page 4 of 4