Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02047/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02047-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 filed a second amended motion on November

21, 2006, which moved to dismiss defendant Chuck Bernardi for

improper service of process; however, this motion was stricken

for failure to comply with local rule 78-230. Consequently, the

court does not address the motion with respect to Mr. Bernardi.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ADAM G. KELLY, by and through

his Guardian Ad Litem Paulette

M. Grandinetti; RAPHELIA B.

GRANDINETTI,

NO. CIV. S-05-2047 FCD KJM

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NORTH HIGHLANDS RECREATION &

PARK DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This case is before the court on defendant North Highlands

Recreation and Park District (“District”), Mary Walls (“Walls”),

Kay Dahill (“Dahill”) and Travis Bill’s (“Bill”) (collectively,

“defendants”) motion to dismiss1

 plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 66 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 10
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 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

3 Although defendants Walls and Bill do not title their

motion as one brought under Rule 12(b)(6), defendants make the

substantive allegation that they owed no duty of care to

plaintiffs. Consequently, the court interprets this as a motion

to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted under Rule 12(b)(6).

4 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

5 The facts of this case are set forth in the court’s

order dated June 14, 2006. (Docket No. 39.)

2

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5)2 and 12(b)(6),3

 and

defendants’ motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f). Plaintiffs

oppose defendants’ motions. For the reasons set forth below,

defendants’ motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.4

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND5

Plaintiffs initially brought this action on July 13, 2005 in

state court, and defendants removed the case on the basis of

original jurisdiction on October 11, 2005. Subsequently, on

October 31, 2005, certain defendants, including the District and

Dahill, moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6). The court issued its ruling on January 19, 2006,

granting the motion in part and permitting plaintiffs to file an

amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

was filed on February 2, 2006. 

On May 25, 2006, certain defendants, including the District

and Dahill, filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ seventh cause

of action, which was granted by the court on June 14, 2006. An

answer to the complaint was filed on behalf of the remaining

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 66 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 10
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

defendants, including the District and Dahill, on August 3, 2006. 

At this point, plaintiffs had not yet served defendants Walls and

Bill, nor had they effected service on defendants Christine

Bagley (“Bagley”), Heather Hornback (“Hornback”), or Chuck

Bernardi (“Bernardi”). Consequently, in its Pretrial Scheduling

Order, dated August 7, 2006, the court gave plaintiffs sixty (60)

days to serve the remaining defendants. Plaintiffs served

defendants Walls, Bill, and Hornback on October 2, 2006, and

served defendant Bernardi on October 25, 2006. To date,

plaintiffs have been unable to locate and serve defendant Bagley. 

STANDARD

A. Rule 12(b)(5)

A motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure challenges the method of service of process;

it does not challenge the propriety of the person served. 

Chilicky v. Schweiker, 796 F.2d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 1986), rev’d

on other grounds, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (Rule 12(b)(5) was

“designed to challenge . . . irregularities in the manner of

delivery of the summons and complaint”). Objection to

sufficiency of process or the service of process “must be

specific and must point out what manner the plaintiff has failed

to satisfy the service provision utilized.” O’Brien v. R.J.

O’Brien & Assoc., 998 F.2d 1394, 1400 (7th Cir. 1993). Upon

finding that service of process is insufficient, the court has

discretion to dismiss the action without prejudice, quash service

and direct plaintiff to effect service within a specified period

of time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 66 Filed 12/07/06 Page 3 of 10
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. Rule 12(b)(6)

On a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),

the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. Cruz

v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). The court is bound to give

plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn

from the “well-pleaded” allegations of the complaint. Retail

Clerks Int’l Ass’n v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746, 753 n.6 (1963). 

Thus, the plaintiff need not necessarily plead a particular fact

if that fact is a reasonable inference from facts properly

alleged. See id. 

Given that the complaint is construed favorably to the

pleader, the court may not dismiss the complaint for failure to

state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff

can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would

entitle him or her to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45

(1957); NL Industries, Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th

Cir. 1986).

Nevertheless, 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. Cal. 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).

C. Rule 12(f)

Rule 12(f) enables the court by motion of a party or by its

own initiative to “order stricken from any pleading . . . any

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 66 Filed 12/07/06 Page 4 of 10
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

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The

function of a 12(f) motion is to avoid the time and expense of

litigating spurious issues. Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d

1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517

(1994); see also 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure 2d § 1380 (1990). 

Rule 12(f) motions are generally viewed with disfavor and

not ordinarily granted, because they are often used to delay, and

because of the limited importance of the pleadings in federal

practice. Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1478 (C.D.

Cal. 1996). A motion to strike should not be granted “unless it

is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible

bearing on the litigation.” Lilley v. Charren, 936 F. Supp. 708,

713 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (citing Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc.,

758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991)).

ANALYSIS

Defendants move (1) to dismiss Dahill on the grounds of

improper service of process; (2) to dismiss Walls and Bill on the

grounds that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against them

upon which relief could be granted; and (3) to dismiss Bagley

from the case on the grounds that she has not been served

pursuant to the court’s August 7, 2006 Pretrial Scheduling Order. 

A. Defendant Dahill

Defendant Dahill contends that the complaint must be

dismissed against her because she has never been served “in her

individual capacity.” (Defs.’ Mem. of P&As in Supp. of Mot.

[“MTD”], filed Oct. 12, 2006, at 5.) Plaintiffs contend that

Dahill was personally served by plaintiff’s counsel on September

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 66 Filed 12/07/06 Page 5 of 10
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

15, 2005. (Decl. of Randall L. Wiens in Supp. of Pls.’ Opp’n,

filed November 14, 2006, at 1.) Regardless of which contention

is correct, the court finds that Dahill has waived any objection

she may have had to sufficiency of service of process under Rule

12(b)(5).

Rule 12(h)(1) provides that a defense of insufficiency of

service of process is waived if it is not raised in an earlier

motion under Rule 12, or if it is not included in a responsive

pleading. See also Church of Scientology v. Linberg, 529 F.

Supp. 945, 966-67 (C.D. Cal. 1981) (holding defense of

insufficient service of process was also barred by Rule 12(g)

where it was not raised in a previous motion to dismiss). Here,

defendant Dahill has been named as a moving party in two earlier

motions to dismiss, neither of which alleged improper service of

process. Indeed, defendants’ counsel, Alden J. Parker, submitted

a declaration to the court on February 16, 2006, signed under

penalty of perjury, which states “Plaintiffs served the Complaint

on . . . Kay Dahill . . . on September 15, 2005.” (Decl. of

Alden J. Parker in Supp. Of Defs.’ Mot. To Dismiss, filed Feb.

16, 2006, at 2.) Moreover, Dahill filed an answer to plaintiffs’

FAC on August 3, 2006, and did not raise insufficiency of service

of process as an affirmative defense in her answer. 

Consequently, the court finds that Dahill has waived any

objections she may have had, and Dahill’s motion to dismiss for

insufficient service of process is DENIED.

B. Defendants Walls and Bill

Defendants Walls and Bill contend that they should be

dismissed because they “were parent volunteers” who had no

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 66 Filed 12/07/06 Page 6 of 10
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

7

special relationship with plaintiffs and owed no duty of care to

plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert that such an argument presupposes

facts that are not apparent on the face of their complaint. 

On a motion to dismiss, the court may consider only the

complaint, any exhibits thereto, and matters which are judicially

noticed. Mir v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646, 649 (9th

Cir. 1988). Additionally, it is not necessarily for plaintiffs

to plead a particular fact if that fact can be reasonably

inferred from those facts that are alleged. Retail Clerks Int’l,

373 U.S. at 753 n.6. Here, plaintiffs’ FAC alleges that, at all

times relevant, Bill was the president of the Dolphins swim team

and Walls was the team director. (FAC ¶¶ 11, 15.) Accepting

these allegations as true, it is reasonable to infer that

defendants, by virtue of their positions, may have had a special

relationship with plaintiffs or otherwise owed plaintiffs a duty

of care. 

By contrast, defendants’ contention that Walls and Bill were

merely parent volunteers whose duties were limited to “serving as

volunteer judges at swimming competitions, providing refreshment

at their expenses [sic], cleaning up, and serving as time

keepers” asks the court to consider facts that are not properly

before it at this time. For these reasons, defendants Walls and

Bill’s motion to dismiss the allegations against them is DENIED.

C. Defendant Bagley 

Defendants maintain that defendant Bagley should be

dismissed because plaintiffs have failed to serve her within the

sixty day period set by the Pretrial Scheduling Order. Indeed,

plaintiffs have been unable to serve Bagley after nearly a year

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 66 Filed 12/07/06 Page 7 of 10
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 Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ motion to strike is

untimely. To the extent that this motion is brought by the

District, it is both waived and time-barred. A Rule 12(f)

motion, like the Rule 12(b)(5) motion, is waived if the party has

previously filed a Rule 12 motion on other grounds. Culinary &

Serv. Employees Union, AFL-CIO Local 555 v. Haw. Employment

(continued...)

8

and a half of litigation, despite the use of a professional

process server and a “skip trace” search. Rule 4(m) provides

that service of the summons and complaint shall take place within

120 days after the filing of the complaint. Although the court

has “broad discretion” to allow an extension of the time for

service, even in the absence of good cause, In re Sheehan, 253

F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001), an extension should not be

indefinite. 

Here, the initial period for service on defendant Bagley

expired in February 2006. When it came to the court’s attention

that Bagley still had not been served six months later, in August

2006, the court granted plaintiffs an additional sixty days to

effect service. Plaintiffs contend that despite their best

efforts, they have been unable to locate and serve Bagley. 

Further, plaintiffs have filed a motion for an order permitting

service on Bagley by publication, pursuant to Rule 4(e)(1) and

California Code of Civil Procedure 415.50. In light of

plaintiffs’ currently noticed motion for service by publication,

the court defers ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss.

D. Motion to Strike

Defendants also move to strike those portions of plaintiffs’

complaint that have either previously been dismissed or that are

dismissed pursuant to this order.6

 However, defendants

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 66 Filed 12/07/06 Page 8 of 10
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(...continued)

Benefit Admin., 688 F.2d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir. 1982). Rule 12(f)

motions brought by a party must also be made within twenty days

of service of the pleading which the party seeks to attack. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(f). However, because defendants Walls and Bill

were each served on October 2, 2006, and this motion was filed on

October 12, 2006, defendants Walls and Bill’s motion to strike is

timely. 

9

misconstrue the purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion. A Rule 12(f)

motion is designed to “excise” improper material from a pleading,

such as an insufficient defense or an otherwise “redundant,

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” allegation. Day v.

Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing 5A Wright &

Miller at 644). It is not the appropriate procedural vehicle for

dismissal of claims in their entirety. Id.; Yamamoto v. Omiya,

564 F.2d 1319, 1327 (9th Cir. 1977)(Hufstedler, C.J.,

dissenting). Moreover, a claim is not immaterial simply because

it was previously the subject of a prior, successful motion to

dismiss. “Where allegations, when read with the complaint as a

whole, give a full understanding thereof, they need not be

stricken.” LeDuc v. Ky. Cent. Life Ins. Co., 814 F. Supp. 820,

830 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Furthermore, there is no need for this

court to duplicate, with an order striking portions of the

complaint, what has already been achieved with prior orders

granting dismissals of claims or parties. For these reasons,

defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ complaint is

DENIED.

/////

/////

///// 

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 66 Filed 12/07/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court finds as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Kay Dahill pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(5) is DENIED.

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Mary Walls and Travis

Bill is DENIED.

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Christine Bagley is

DEFERRED in light of plaintiffs’ motion for service by

publication.

4. Defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’

complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 7, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 66 Filed 12/07/06 Page 10 of 10