Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03300/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03300-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

PAUL TALCOTT CURRIER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROBERT CHOW, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03300 SI

ORDER GRANTING SBC’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

Now before the Court is a motion by SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (“SBC”), to dismiss

plaintiff’s third amended complaint. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the motions suitable

for resolution without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing set for February 3, 2006. 

This Court has already issued three orders dismissing the third amended complaint against a total

of eleven defendants. Those orders all found that the complaint failed to comply with the pleading

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff’s allegations against SBC are no more

sufficient than those against the other defendants. SBC is mentioned only a handful of times in the

complaint’s 409 paragraphs, and in the majority of those paragraphs it is mentioned only in passing.

Despite its limited factual description of SBC’s misconduct, however, the complaint brings sweeping

allegations against the company. In short, as with the other defendants, the third amended complaint’s

combination of conclusory allegations and lack of supporting detail are fatal to plaintiff’s claims against

SBC.

///

Case 3:04-cv-03300-SI Document 280 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the reasons stated in its prior orders, the Court GRANTS SBC’s motion to dismiss (Docket

No. 254). Plaintiffs’ claims against SBC are DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2006 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03300-SI Document 280 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2