Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00018/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00018-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 Defendants also requested the court sanction plaintiff

“for filing a frivolous lawsuit and for bringing malicious

prosecution against the Current Owners.” (Defs.’ Mem. of P. &

A., filed Apr. 27, 2007, at 7 [Docket #6].) In their reply to

plaintiff’s opposition, defendants reaffirmed this request,

(continued...)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

STEPHEN HEINEMANN,

NO. CIV. 07-00018 FCD DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COPPERHILL APARTMENTS; THE

GARABALDI COMPANY; JOHN L.

EVILSIZOR; MARY A. EVILSIZOR;

KENNETH A. EVILSIZOR and Does

1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

 On Janurary 2, 2007, plaintiff Stephen Heinemann

(“plaintiff”) filed a complaint with this court against

defendants Copperhill Apartments, The Garabaldi Company, John L.

Evilsizor, Mary A. Evilsizor, and Kenneth A. Evilsizor

(collectively “defendants”). On April 27, 2007, defendants moved

to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion

Case 2:07-cv-00018-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/31/07 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

1(...continued)

explicitly seeking sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. (Defs.’ Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n, filed

July 6, 2007, at 7 [Docket #10].) However, defendants did not

file a properly noticed motion for sanctions under Rule 11, nor

is there evidence that they complied with the procedural

prerequisites set forth in Rule 11. As such, the court does not

reach the merits of this request. 

2 For example, plaintiff makes broad and conclusory 

allegations that “defendants have failed and continue to fail to

provide sufficient barrier free access to the [Copperhill

(continued...)

2

and, in the alternative, seeks leave to amend his complaint. 

 Because the court concludes that the complaint lacks the

necessary information to place defendants on proper notice and to

give them adequate ability to respond as required by Rule 8(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it does not reach the

merits of defendants’ motion to dismiss. While the complaint is

saturated with conclusory statements of the law, sweeping

allegations of general misconduct, and faulty grammar, it remains

barren of any “short and plain statement of the claim” required

by Rule 8(a). The Seventh Circuit recently elaborated on the

meaning of Rule 8(a)’s short and plain statement requirement:

Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings

straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties

need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.

Federal judges have better things to do, and the

substantial subsidy of litigation (court costs do not

begin to cover the expense of the judiciary) should be

targeted on those litigants who take the preliminary

steps to assemble a comprehensible claim.

U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378

(7th Cir. 2003). 

Rule 8(a) does not permit plaintiff to file a boilerplate

complaint containing generalized allegations of discrimination2

Case 2:07-cv-00018-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/31/07 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

2(...continued)

Apartments];” “defendants owed plaintiff a mandatory statutory

duty;” and “defendants’ negligent conduct as described herein was

fraudulent, malicious and oppressive and done in conscious or

reckless disregard for plaintiff’s rights.” (Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 18,

37, 40.) 

3

in order to justify a fishing expedition into potential

violations by defendants. A plaintiff is not required to plead

detailed facts, but he must plead some facts. See DM Research

Inc. v. College of American Pathologists, 170 F.3d 53, 55 (1st

Cir. 1999) (while the complaint need not provide evidentiary

detail, “the price of entry, even to discovery, is for plaintiff

to allege a factual predicate concrete enough to warrant further

proceedings, which may be costly and burdensome. Conclusory

allegations in a complaint, if they stand alone, are a danger

sign that the plaintiff is engaged in a fishing expedition.”).

The Supreme Court has recently stated that “without some factual

allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant

could satisfy the requirement of providing not only “fair notice”

of the nature of the claim, but also “grounds” on which the claim

rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 n.3

(2007). It is inappropriate to assume that plaintiff “can prove

facts which it has not alleged or that the defendants have

violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged.” 

Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. California State

Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). Moreover, the

court “need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the

form of factual allegations.” United States ex rel. Chunie v.

Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Case 2:07-cv-00018-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/31/07 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

To permit plaintiff to construe his complaint as entirely

generic and, throughout the litigation, incorporate any new

factual allegations without seeking amendment would read the

“fair notice” requirement out of Rule 8(a) and would seriously

undermine the rule’s goal of encouraging expeditious resolution

of disputes. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the court

makes the following orders: 

 (1) Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty

(30) days of the date of this order, which complies

with Rule 8(a). Plaintiff shall supplement his

complaint with pertinent information which will allow

defendants to properly and fully answer it. 

(2) Defendants pending motion to dismiss is VACATED as

MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 31, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00018-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/31/07 Page 4 of 4