Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00641/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00641-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey A. Lowy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kellogg Sales Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-641-PHX-FJM

ORDER

On April 27, 2011, we granted Kellogg’s motion to dismiss the original complaint,

concluding that plaintiff’s one-paragraph complaint failed to set forth a cognizable legal

theory or sufficient facts to support a cause of action (doc. 15). We granted plaintiff leave

to amend his complaint in order to cure the deficiencies. Plaintiff then filed an amended

complaint that is similarly defective. 

We now have before us Kellogg’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint (doc. 17).

Plaintiff did not respond to the motion and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv

7.2(c). Failure to respond to a motion “may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the

motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). We grant

Kellogg’s motion to dismiss on this basis.

In addition, we consider the motion to dismiss and grant it on the merits. Kellogg

argues that, among other deficiencies, plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to assert any facts

Case 2:11-cv-00641-FJM Document 20 Filed 07/08/11 Page 1 of 2
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 -

to support the causation element of plaintiff’s negligence claim. Plaintiff asserts only that

“[t]here is no question that the plaintiff’s ingestion of Austin Peanut Butter Crackers in

December of 2008 is what caused his end stage renal disease.” Amended Complaint. This

conclusory statement is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8, Fed. R.

Civ. P.; see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). The

complaint is properly dismissed on this basis.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Kellogg’s motion to dismiss the amended

complaint (doc. 17). Plaintiff has not sought leave to amend his complaint, or otherwise

responded to Kellogg’s motion. Therefore the action will be dismissed. The clerk shall enter

final judgment. 

DATED this 8th day of July, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00641-FJM Document 20 Filed 07/08/11 Page 2 of 2