Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00719/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00719-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Injunction

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

916 RADIO, a California nonprofit corporation; SAUNDRA

“DJ RENE E” GRIFFIN, and KEVIN

ARDOIN,

NO. CIV. 05-0719 FCD DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant Federal

Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) motion to dismiss pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) (“Rule 8(a)(2)”) on the

ground that the complaint fails to make a short and plain

statement of plaintiffs’ claims. Specifically, defendant asserts

plaintiffs’ complaint is “unnecessarily long” and “filled with

detailed factual allegations unnecessary to any short and plain

statement of the claim.” (Memo. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to

Dismiss, filed July 1, 2005, at 5.) 

Case 2:05-cv-00719-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 7
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 The background section is based on the allegations of

plaintiffs’ complaint.

2

For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES

defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2).

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiffs are a group of persons and organizations engaged

in “microradio” (low-power FM Radio) broadcasting in Sacramento,

California. Plaintiff 916 Radio is a nonprofit educational

corporation that has operated a microradio station in

Sacramento’s midtown district since May 19, 2004. Plaintiff DJ

Renee is a member of plaintiff 916 Radio and is a DJ on Saturday

mornings from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Plaintiff Kevin Ardoin is

a resident of Sacramento, California and a regular listener of

plaintiff 916 Radio’s microradio broadcasts.

Plaintiffs allege that on January 3, 2005, Will Major

(“Major”), 916 Radio’s manager, answered a phone call from a

person representing the FCC. Major was advised that the call was

in response to several complaints suggesting that 916 Radio was a

“pirate radio station.” Major explained to the FCC caller that

916 Radio was complying with all LPFM-318 (federal) regulations. 

Additionally, Major explained that the FCC Media Department had

told 916 Radio that it was legally allowed to operate in its

present manner. The FCC caller told Major that if anyone else

called to complain, he would refer the person to 916 Radio

directly.

Plaintiffs further allege that on January 5, 2005, federal

agents Glenn Phillips (“Phillips”) and Thomas Hora (“Hora”) came

to 916 Radio’s premises and advised Major that a “non-specific

Case 2:05-cv-00719-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 7
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

complaint” had been filed against 916 Radio. Thereupon, Phillips

and Hora received permission from Major to search the premises. 

Major explained that the FCC Media Center had told the station

that it was “okay” as long as it complied with LPFM-318

regulations. Phillips and Hora asked to see the radio

transmitter, and after viewing it, told Major that the

transmitter was out of compliance and not FCC certified. 

Phillips and Hora then recommended that Major terminate

broadcasting, adding that further broadcasting could result in a

$100,000 fine, one year of imprisonment, or confiscation of the

broadcasting equipment. Phillips and Hora left a “Notice of

Unlicensed Radio Operation” which indicated the station’s power

output exceeded the allowable limits.

Finally, plaintiffs allege that on January 12, 2005, an FCC

agent or agents returned to 916 Radio premises, but Major refused

to open the door. The agent or agents then left another “Notice

of Unlicensed Radio Operation” which indicated 916 Radio’s output

exceeded the allowable limits, and 916 Radio had refused

permission to inspect the premises. 

Plaintiffs thus seek injunctive relief enjoining the FCC and

the United States Government from closing their microradio

station or from obtaining an ex parte order permitting the

seizure and confiscation of their broadcasting equipment. 

STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a pleading

provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) ("[A]ll the Rules

Case 2:05-cv-00719-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 09/01/05 Page 3 of 7
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

require is 'a short and plain statement of the claim' that will

give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.").

 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8

is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Gillibeau v.

City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969). 

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has upheld such dismissals when a

complaint is overly long, confusing, and not in compliance with

Rule 8. See, e.g., Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 415

(9th Cir. 1985); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d

671, 675 (9th Cir. 1981); Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221,

1224 (9th Cir. 1980). Nevertheless, ”dismissal for a violation

under Rule 8(a)(2) is usually confined to instances in which the

complaint is ‘so verbose, confused or redundant that its true

substance, if any, is well disguised.’” Gillibeau, 417 F.2d at

431 (citing Corcoran v. Yorty, 347 F.2d 222, 223 (9th Cir.

1965)). 

Other courts have held that length alone is not sufficient

grounds for dismissal under Rule 8(a). Citicorp Intern. Trading

Co., Inc. v. Western, 771 F. Supp. 600, 603 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). 

Moreover, outright dismissals for reasons “not going to the

merits [are] viewed with disfavor in the federal courts.” 

Harrison v. Enventure Capitol Group, Inc., 666 F. Supp. 473, 479

(W.D.N.Y. 1987) (citing Nagler v. Admiral Corp., 248 F.2d 319,

323 (2nd Cir. 1957)). Furthermore, the purpose of Rule 8 “is

that the adversary party or parties have sufficient notice to

prepare their defense and the court is sufficiently informed to

determine the issue presented.” Philadelphia Dressed Beef Co. v.

Case 2:05-cv-00719-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 09/01/05 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Wilson & Co., 19 F.R.D. 198, 201 (E.D. Pa. 1956).

ANALYSIS

Defendant relies on four cases to support its motion to

dismiss under Rule 8(a)(2). None of the four cases, however, are

comparable to plaintiffs’ complaint.

In Hartz v. Friedman, 919 F.2d 469, 471 (7th Cir. 1990),

plaintiffs filed a 125-page complaint alleging, inter alia,

violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Act. The court found that this was an “egregious violation of

Rule 8(a).” Id. Despite this finding, the court explained that

it would consider the claim on its merits. Id.

In Washington v. Baenziger, 656 F. Supp. 1176 (N.D. Cal.

1987), the plaintiff filed an 86-page complaint with 15 pages of

exhibits which contained 33 causes of action against 21

defendants. Id. at 1177. The court found that this constituted

a clear failure to provide a short and plain statement of the

claim as required by Rule 8(a)(2) which justified dismissal with

leave to amend. Id. at 1178. 

In Soghomonian v. U.S., 82 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (E.D. Cal.

1999), the plaintiffs filed an 87-page first amended complaint

with an additional 40-plus pages of attachments. Id. at 1136. 

The court held that “[the complaint] did not comply with the

‘short and plain statement’ requirement of Rule 8(a)(2).” Id.

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on other

grounds, but imposed a limit of 50 pages (not including

attachments). Id. at 1150.

In In re Westinghouse Securities Litigation, 90 F.3d 696 (3d

Cir. 1996), the plaintiffs filed a 240-page second amended

Case 2:05-cv-00719-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 09/01/05 Page 5 of 7
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 Plaintiffs’ complaint was filed as part of a single

document containing both the “complaint” and a “memorandum of law

in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.” 

Pages 1-9 of that document consist of a caption page, table of

contents, and table of authorities. Pages 10-24 comprise the

complaint, and pages 25-43 comprise the points and authorities. 

Only the complaint is at issue on the instant motion. Plaintiffs

have not noticed a hearing on a request for a preliminary

injunction, so at present, the memorandum of law is not before

the court. 

3 Defendants object to the number of pages of

attachments. These attachments do not, however, confuse the

issues plaintiffs present in their complaint. Furthermore,

plaintiffs maintain that they attached the documents “out of fear

the government would complain the complaint failed to apprise

them of the facts and/or theory of relief.” (Pls.’ Opp’n at 4-

5.) 

6

complaint, including a 50-plus page “overview” of the alleged

wrongful conduct. Id. at 703. The court described the complaint

as “unnecessarily complicated and verbose” and affirmed the

district court’s dismissal under Rule 8 with leave to amend. Id.

Here, plaintiffs’ complaint totals 14 pages2 (with 42 pages

of exhibits3). This is far removed from the 125-page complaint

in Hartz, the 86-page complaint in Washington, the 87-page

complaint in Soghomonian, and from the 240-page complaint in

Westinghouse. 

Additionally, as the factual background above makes clear,

it cannot be said that plaintiffs’ 14-page complaint is so

verbose, confused, or redundant that its true substance is

disguised. Though plaintiffs may have provided more facts than

required to state their claims for relief, federal notice

pleading does not bar this type of detail. The complaint

apprises defendant of plaintiffs’ claims and the proposed relief

sought so as to sufficiently enable defendants to respond. As

such, it complies with Rule 8(a)(2).

Case 2:05-cv-00719-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 09/01/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, defendant’s motion to

dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00719-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 09/01/05 Page 7 of 7