Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01736/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01736-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIVERWOOD ENERGY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

WESTERN STATES INTERNATIONAL, 

INC. et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01736-DAD-JLT

ORDER STRIKING REQUESTS FOR 

DISMISSAL BY DEFENDANTS DEREK M. 

WILLSHEE AND JAMES R. ZADKO

(Doc. Nos. 10–13)

On December 31, 2015, defendants Derek M. Willshee and James R. Zadko, proceeding 

pro se, filed separate and nearly identical requests to dismiss this action.

1

 (Doc. Nos. 10–13.) As 

defendants are pro se litigants, the court has an obligation to construe such pleadings liberally. 

Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). However, after considering

their requests for dismissal (which may be liberally interpreted as motions to dismiss), this court 

concludes that defendants’ requests are deficient under the Local Rules and do not state 

cognizable grounds for dismissal of the action. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the 

court strikes defendants’ requests. 

/////

 

1 Defendants filed their requests for dismissal, which are accompanied by declarations in support 

thereof, on forms that appear to be adopted for use by California state courts.

Case 1:15-cv-01736-DAD-JLT Document 14 Filed 01/13/16 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

2

Local Rule 230(b) requires that a moving party “shall file a notice of motion, motion, 

accompanying briefs, affidavits, if appropriate, and copies of all documentary evidence that the 

moving party intends to submit in support of the motion.” The matter also must be set for hearing 

not less than twenty-eight (28) days after service and filing of the motion. As a motion, 

defendants’ requests for dismissal do not include a notice of motion, nor do they set a date for 

hearing. Defendants’ requests are therefore procedurally deficient.

The court further finds that defendants’ requests, liberally interpreted, do not provide a 

cognizable basis to dismiss the case against them at this stage of the litigation. To the extent 

defendants wish to attack the plaintiff’s claims as pled in the complaint (see Doc. No. 1), they 

may do so by filing a properly noticed motion and offering a basis for their motion to dismiss. 

See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).2For example, a defendant may bring a bring a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int’l v. 

Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). A dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) 

may be based either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts 

alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 

1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990)). A plaintiff is required to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009).

For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ notices to dismiss, including their 

accompanying declarations (Doc. Nos. 10–13) shall be STRIKEN. Defendants are directed to 

 

2

The court notes that defendant Willshee has filed a similar request for dismissal in a related 

case. See Inviron Techs., Inc. v. W. States Int’l, Inc. et al., No. 1:15-cv-01643-DAD-JLT, Doc. 

No. 17. However, in that other case, co-defendants Ingrid Aliet-Gass and Western States 

International filed a separate motion to dismiss. (See id., Doc. Nos. 25, 28.) To the extent that 

motion to dismiss covers claims also alleged against defendant Willshee, the court will liberally 

interpret defendants Willshee’s request for dismissal as a joinder in the motion to dismiss filed by 

counsel on behalf of defendants Aliet-Gass and Western States International.

Case 1:15-cv-01736-DAD-JLT Document 14 Filed 01/13/16 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

serve an answer or otherwise responsive pleading, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(a) within fourteen (14) days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2016 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:15-cv-01736-DAD-JLT Document 14 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 3