Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGIO ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRIS-SHEA BRIDGE COMPANY, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DEFENDANT MORRISSHEA BRIDGE COMPANY, INC.’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF

SERGIO ALVAREZ’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

(Doc. 22)

 Sergio Alvarez seeks damages against Morris-Shea Bridge Company, Inc. for alleged 

retaliation. (See generally Doc. 1-3.) Currently before the Court is Morris-Shea’s motion to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). (Doc. 22.) The motion to dismiss was referred to the undersigned for preparation of 

findings and recommendations. (Doc. 26.) The Court found the motion suitable for decision 

without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230, and vacated the hearing. (Doc. 27.) 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends Morris-Shea’s motion to dismiss 

the First Amended Complaint be granted without leave to amend. 

I. BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS

On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a civil action in Fresno County Superior Court against 

Morris-Shea, seeking damages in the amount of $120,000. (Doc. 1-3, Compl. at 6.) Plaintiff 

alleged: “It was a ratalition [sic] and there a file on the labor Commission.” (Id.) In the attached 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 41 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 6
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

civil cover sheet, Plaintiff described the case as one for “Other PI/PD/WD [Personal 

Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death].” (Id. at 2.) Morris-Shea removed the action to this 

Court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 2-3.) 

On June 26, 2024, Morris-Shea filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, asserting that the 

Complaint failed to state facts sufficient to establish any claim upon which relief could be 

granted. (Doc. 8.) On August 27, 2024, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed 

Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Doc. 19.) 

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 29, 2024. (Doc. 20.) In 

the FAC, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

I have concern about you trying to dismiss this case because defendant trying to 

say I did not respond to the 14 days I always respond the next day that I get your 

letters and issue diversity so why is the labor Commission [investigating] this case 

and I would like to see what evidence you seeing or going off on case to [dismiss] 

it Because[e] the labor Commission been working on this case for over 2 years 

and I turn all the evidence that I gave you: if there no problem they would have 

close this case and they told me to them to court and now the court is making it 

hard for me to get a court date and I have show the evidence and they have not. I 

am not afraid to talk you with them present because I know they are and don’t 

have no proof or evidence to back [their] story. I would appreciate that you make 

the right decision because all they want is to dismiss it.

(Id.)

On September 13, 2024, Morris-Shea filed the instant motion to dismiss the FAC for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.1 (Doc. 22.) Morris-Shea contends that 

the FAC does not aver any cognizable legal theory or facts and it does not plainly state how 

Morris-Shea’s alleged actions constitute a legal violation entitling Plaintiff to relief. (Doc. 22-1 

at 4.) 

Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Court therefore 

issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why the motion should not be granted, and the action 

dismissed with prejudice. The Court instructed Plaintiff that he could comply with the Order by 

filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Morris-Shea’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 

1 On October 11, 2024, the Court instructed Morris-Shea to file proof of service of the motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. 31.) On October 14, 2024, Morris-Shea filed a certificate/proof of service indicating that Plaintiff 

had been served with the motion to dismiss by U.S. Mail on October 14, 2024. (Doc. 32.) 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 41 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 6
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

33.) Plaintiff filed a response to the show cause order on November 13, 2024. (Doc. 34.) Based 

on the response, the Court discharged the Order to Show Cause and directed Plaintiff to file an 

opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than December 2, 2024. (Doc. 35.)

On November 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 38.) 

Morris-Shea replied on November 27, 2024. (Doc. 40.)

II. MOTION TO DISMISS 

A. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro 

v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when 

“the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal 

theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). 

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is 

facially plausible when it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The sheer possibility that a defendant 

acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the 

plausibility standard. Id. (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962,

969 (2009). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In general, pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, 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).

To the extent pleading deficiencies can be cured by the plaintiff alleging additional facts, 

leave to amend should be granted. Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. Northern Cal. Collection Serv.

Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 41 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 6
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

B. Discussion and Analysis

Morris-Shea argues that the FAC fails to state facts upon which relief can be granted in 

compliance with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). To that 

end, Morris-Shea contends that the FAC does not articulate any legal claim or aver any 

underlying facts. Morris-Shea asserts that Plaintiff only makes a conclusory assertion that the 

case should not be dismissed. Morris-Shea further contends that it is not on notice of what it has 

been sued for. (Doc. 22-1 at 5.)

In his opposition, labelled “Objection,” Plaintiff states:

I want the Judge to take in consideration the evidence I turn in to the Court and 

she not I have not seen the Judge ask the defendant to provide evidence or 

anything to the Court and I would like the Judge to keep the hearing date for Dec 

19 so I could show what I mean and there a case against Morris Shea on the Labor 

Commission and there witnesses on this case. Please make a fair decision on this 

and not just favor the defendant attorneys just because they could afford the 

attorney and I could not. Just they move this case to federal and I file state court 

it seems the [ ] state court would make a better [decision]. 

(Doc. 38.)

Morris-Shea replies that Plaintiff’s opposition offers no material law or facts to clarify 

what this lawsuit is about. Morris-Shea argues that Plaintiff instead makes conclusory references 

to evidence he turned in to the Court and a Labor Commission, which do not indicate a 

cognizable theory. Morris-Shea further argues that because Plaintiff fails to state in plain 

language what this case is about in his FAC, it should be dismissed. (Doc. 40 at 4.) 

Having considered the FAC, and the parties’ arguments, the Court agrees that MorrisShea’s motion to dismiss should be granted. Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). As previously noted, 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 

Plaintiff’s FAC is short, but it is not a plain statement of his claims. As with his original 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 41 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 6
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

complaint, the FAC fails to include sufficient factual allegations identifying what happened, when 

it happened, or who was involved. The FAC fails to clearly identify Morris-Shea’s alleged 

actions and how those actions constitute a legal violation entitling Plaintiff to relief. The nature 

of Plaintiff’s claim(s) against Morris-Shea remains unclear. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion 

to dismiss similarly fails to clarify the nature of this action. It offers no additional facts or legal 

theories to support a claim. 

Morris-Shea argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to 

amend. To support this argument, Morris-Shea reasons that Plaintiff has been provided 

opportunities to amend, but his continued inability to plead any proper action demonstrates that 

amendment would be futile. (Doc. 40 at 4.) 

Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend should be 

freely given “when justice so requires,” and courts are guided by “the underlying purpose of Rule 

15 to facilitate decisions on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that “a district court should grant leave to amend even if no 

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly 

be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1130 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In this instance, despite being provided with the Rule 8 pleading standard, a prior 

opportunity to amend his complaint, and an additional opportunity to identify the facts and legal 

theories underlying this action, Plaintiff has been unable to state a cognizable claim. The Court 

therefore concludes that further leave to amend is not warranted. Id. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. Morris-Shea’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 22) be 

granted.

2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 41 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 

fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 

number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 

limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 41 Filed 12/04/24 Page 6 of 6