Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01804/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01804-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TURAN RAMADAN, TRISH RAMADAN,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

CITY OF NAPA, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C-06-1804 MHP

ORDER DENYING

WITHDRAWAL OF

COMPLAINT

PENDING

DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs filed this action on March 8, 2006. Approximately one month later they filed an

amended complaint. On October 3, 2006, the parties appeared before the court for a case

management conference. At that time a schedule was set for the filing of a motion to amend the

complaint, the motion to be filed on November 6, 2006. On that date plaintiffs filed a “Notice of

Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s [sic] Second Amended Complaint” wherein plaintiffs alleged they had

filed a second amended complaint on November 1, 2006. It appears from the docket sheet that a

“second amended complaint motion to amend/correct” was filed on November 1, but the docket at

#17 states “erroneous entry”. 

The reason given for the withdrawal of the complaint is that plaintiffs need to do additional

discovery “before representing to the court, the legal sufficiency of the allegations raised ”.

Plaintiffs have it backwards. Plaintiffs must present a legally sufficient complaint before

they will be permitted to embark on discovery. Defendants are entitled to test the legal sufficiency

by a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) without having to respond to or engage

Case 3:06-cv-01804-MHP Document 20 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 6
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

in discovery. The threshold question on such a motion is whether the complaint states a claim upon

which relief can be granted. If not, the plaintiff does not get the opportunity to go on a discovery

fishing expedition looking for something that will fill in the deficiencies.

This Circuit has been clear on this issue, holding that this position is “unsupported and defies

common sense”. Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). The

Court went on to state that the first question is whether there is any “reasonable likelihood that

plaintiffs can construct a claim before forcing the parties to undergo the expense of discovery.” Id.

Therefore, the notice to withdraw the second amended complaint is stricken. Plaintiff must

either file a motion to amend within twenty (20) days of the date of this order or live with the

complaint that is currently on file, namely the amended complaint filed on April 10, 2006.

Date: November 13, 2006 MARILYN HALL PATEL

Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-01804-MHP Document 20 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 6
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

ENDNOTES

Case 3:06-cv-01804-MHP Document 20 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 6
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TURAN RAMADAN, TRISH RAMADAN,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

CITY OF NAPA, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C-06-1804 MHP

ORDER DENYING

WITHDRAWAL OF

COMPLAINT

PENDING

DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs filed this action on March 8, 2006. Approximately one month later they filed an

amended complaint. On October 3, 2006, the parties appeared before the court for a case

management conference. At that time a schedule was set for the filing of a motion to amend the

complaint, the motion to be filed on November 6, 2006. On that date plaintiffs filed a “Notice of

Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s [sic] Second Amended Complaint” wherein plaintiffs alleged they had

filed a second amended complaint on November 1, 2006. It appears from the docket sheet that a

“second amended complaint motion to amend/correct” was filed on November 1, but the docket at

#17 states “erroneous entry”. 

The reason given for the withdrawal of the complaint is that plaintiffs need to do additional

discovery “before representing to the court, the legal sufficiency of the allegations raised ”.

Plaintiffs have it backwards. Plaintiffs must present a legally sufficient complaint before

they will be permitted to embark on discovery. Defendants are entitled to test the legal sufficiency

by a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) without having to respond to or engage

Case 3:06-cv-01804-MHP Document 20 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 6
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

in discovery. The threshold question on such a motion is whether the complaint states a claim upon

which relief can be granted. If not, the plaintiff does not get the opportunity to go on a discovery

fishing expedition looking for something that will fill in the deficiencies.

This Circuit has been clear on this issue, holding that this position is “unsupported and defies

common sense”. Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). The

Court went on to state that the first question is whether there is any “reasonable likelihood that

plaintiffs can construct a claim before forcing the parties to undergo the expense of discovery.” Id.

Therefore, the notice to withdraw the second amended complaint is stricken. Plaintiff must

either file a motion to amend within twenty (20) days of the date of this order or live with the

complaint that is currently on file, namely the amended complaint filed on April 10, 2006.

Date: November 13, 2006 MARILYN HALL PATEL

Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-01804-MHP Document 20 Filed 11/13/06 Page 5 of 6
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

ENDNOTES

Case 3:06-cv-01804-MHP Document 20 Filed 11/13/06 Page 6 of 6