Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03861/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03861-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:688 Jones 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

KARI PRESTON,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-3861 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO DISMISS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is the motion of defendant BAE Systems San Francisco Ship

Repair, Inc. (“BAE”) for an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. In the alternative, BAE moves pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for a more definite statement. Having read the

parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority,

and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss, WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

This is a maritime case, brought under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104; the Public

Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C. § 31101, et seq.; and the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30901,

et seq.; and general maritime law; and also alleging claims of unseaworthiness, and

maintenance and cure. 

Plaintiff Kari Preston was employed as a member of the crew of the M/V CAPE

Case 4:07-cv-03861-PJH Document 20 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 5
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

MOHICAN (“the vessel”). The vessel was owned by defendant United States of America,

and managed on behalf of the United States Maritime Administration (“MARAD”), by

MARAD’s ship manager, Ocean Duchess, Inc. 

Plaintiff filed this action on July 27, 2007, alleging that during the course of her

employment aboard the vessel, from August 3, 2006, through November 11, 2006, while

the vessel was berthed in Alameda, California, she was injured following her exposure to

various hazardous substances.

Plaintiff also asserts a claim against defendant BAE and 10 DOE defendants, which

plaintiff alleges were engaged in removing asbestos from the vessel during the time it was

berthed in Alameda, pursuant to a contract with the United States. Plaintiff alleges that

BAE did not perform its work in a workmanlike manner, and that she was a third-party

beneficiary of the contract between the United States and BAE.

On October 22, 2007, the United States answered the complaint, and included

cross-claims against co-defendant BAE. On November 5, 2007, BAE filed the present

motion. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claims

alleged in the complaint. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2003).

Review is limited to the contents of the complaint. Allarcom Pay Television, Ltd. v. Gen.

Instrument Corp., 69 F.3d 381, 385 (9th Cir. 1995). To survive a motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim, a complaint generally must satisfy only the minimal notice pleading

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Rule 8(a)(2) requires only that the

complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Specific facts are unnecessary – the statement need only give the defendant “fair

notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct.

2197, 2200 (2007) (citation omitted). All allegations of material fact are taken as true. Id.

Case 4:07-cv-03861-PJH Document 20 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 5
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

1

 In addition, BAE seeks an order dismissing the claims asserted against “Shore

“Terminals.” The section of the complaint that includes the allegations against BAE (beginning

with ¶ 18) is headed, “Claims for Relief Against Shore Terminals, DOE Defendants.” In her

opposition to the motion, plaintiff states that the reference to “Shore Terminals” is a

typographical error, and that the heading on that section should read, “Claims for Relief

Against BAE Systems San Francisco Ship Repair, Inc., DOE Defendants.”

3

However, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief “requires

more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007))

(citations and quotations omitted). Rather, the allegations in the complaint “must be

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 1965. A motion to

dismiss should be granted if the complaint does not proffer enough facts to state a claim for

relief that is plausible on its face. See id. at 1966-67. 

B. Defendant’s Motion

BAE seeks an order dismissing the claims against it for failure to state a claim. 

Specifically, BAE argues that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to put BAE on

notice of the alleged tortious conduct and of plaintiff’s alleged injuries. BAE asserts that the

complaint is so vague and ambiguous that it cannot form a responsive pleading.1

 

BAE asserts that in toxic tort litigation (i.e., asbestos litigation), where the pleaded

facts of tortious conduct and injury do not naturally give rise to an inference of causation,

the plaintiff must plead facts supporting an inference that one caused the other. However,

BAE argues, in this case, plaintiff has failed to do so.

BAE asserts that the complaint fails to state what work BAE was performing on the

vessel, where on the vessel BAE was performing the work, whether plaintiff was in the

immediate vicinity of the work, what toxins or other hazardous materials BAE was working

with on the vessel, what type of work BAE was performing with the toxins or other

hazardous materials, what type of injury she allegedly suffered, and whether the toxins or

other hazardous materials attributable to BAE could cause such injuries. 

BAE also contends that the complaint fails to set forth a viable legal theory against

BAE, and that based on the allegations in the complaint, BAE cannot be certain whether it

Case 4:07-cv-03861-PJH Document 20 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

is being sued for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, or personal injury, or all

three. And as to each of those theories, BAE argues that the complaint fails to plead facts

supporting the required elements.

In the alternative, BAE seeks an order compelling plaintiff to provide a more definite

statement. BAE claims that the complaint fails to set forth the facts of BAE’s alleged

wrongdoing, fails to identify plaintiff’s injury, and fails to set forth any facts linking that injury

to BAE’s conduct. BAE argues that it cannot frame a responsive pleading until it knows

what claims are being asserted against it.

Both the United States and plaintiff have filed oppositions to BAE’s motion. The

United States argues that the complaint adequately states a claim as against BAE. The

United States notes that the complaint alleges that plaintiff was an employee working on

the vessel; that at material times BAE and/or persons for whom BAE was responsible were

on board the vessel performing work to remove asbestos and other hazardous materials

pursuant to a contract; that BAE was negligent in performing this work; that BAE’s

negligence caused the plaintiff to be exposed to various hazardous materials; that plaintiff

suffered injury or damages as a result of this alleged negligence; and that plaintiff sought

and received medical treatment as a result of such exposure. The United States argues

that these allegations are sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) to put

BAE on notice of the claims being asserted against it.

Plaintiff’s arguments are similar to the arguments made by the United States. She

asserts that the complaint alleges that BAE was negligent in performing work aboard the

vessel on which plaintiff was employed by the United States; that BAE breached its

warranty of workmanlike performance of such work; and that plaintiff was exposed to

substances causing her injury as a result of BAE’s actions. Plaintiff contends that these

allegations are sufficient to state a claim under Rule 8.

In reply, BAE asserts that the arguments of the United States and plaintiff

notwithstanding, the complaint does not set forth sufficient factual allegations against BAE

in order to raise the right to relief above a speculative level. In particular, BAE reiterates

Case 4:07-cv-03861-PJH Document 20 Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

that plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim of negligence. 

The court finds that the motion must be GRANTED. While the complaint is

adequate in its statement of the general background facts supporting plaintiff’s claim – that

plaintiff worked on a vessel owned by the United States, that the United States hired BAE

to remove asbestos from the vessel, that BAE was negligent in taking certain actions which

exposed plaintiff to asbestos, and that such exposure resulted in injury to her – it is not

comprehensible in terms of what cause or causes of action are being asserted against

either defendant. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

The dismissal is WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint must present

separate, numbered causes of action, must specify the law and facts that support each

cause of action, and must state which cause of action is being asserted against which

defendant. 

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the court hereby GRANTS BAE’s motion. Any

amended complaint shall be filed no later than December 21, 2007. The date for the

hearing on this motion, previously noticed for December 12, 2007, is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03861-PJH Document 20 Filed 12/03/07 Page 5 of 5