Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01320/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01320-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1934

---

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

Richard Gayer,

Plaintiff,

v.

COXCOM, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-1320-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Defendant CoxCom, Inc.’s (“Cox”) Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 8) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim

under Rules 12(b)(1) & (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cox contends that

Plaintiff’s sole federal question fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and this

Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case involving nondiverse parties.

Also before the Court is Defendant Scientific Atlanta Inc.’s (Scientific Atlanta) Motion

to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 9) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to

state a claim under Rules 12(b)(1) & (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finally, the Court has before it Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

(Doc. 19), wherein Plaintiff seeks leave to file an Amended Complaint to add factual

allegations, as well as an additional claim, and to amend the relief requested.

BACKGROUND

Pro se Plaintiff Richard Gayer (“Gayer”) is a retired California lawyer who describes

Case 2:07-cv-01320-SMM Document 31 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 3
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 -

himself as having “extensive litigation experience in the Northern District of California and the

Ninth Circuit.” (Complaint at ¶ 1). Gayer purchased his cause of action from Charles Marquis

(“Marquis”), a Cox cable television subscriber residing in Phoenix, Arizona. (Id.) Marquis

subscribes to Cox Digital Television Service in late September, 2006, and Gayer allegedly has

been complaining to Cox since late April, 2007, of problems with the audio and visual signals

on Marquis’ television. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 9). In response to Gayer’s complaints, Cox allegedly replaced

Marquis’s set-top box at least five times. (Id. at ¶ 9, 10). However, Gayer allegedly remains

unsatisfied with the signal quality provided by Cox. (Id. at ¶ 10). Gayer contends that pursuant

to Marquis’s contract with Cox, the set-top boxes degrade signal quality (Id. at ¶ 13), damaging

Marquis in the amount of $22 per month (Id. at page 7). Furthermore, Gayer seeks a

declaratory judgment that the signal quality on Marquis’s television fails to meet applicable

FCC requirements. (Id.) Moreover, Gayer has sued Scientific Atlanta because it allegedly

manufactured the set-top boxes provided by Cox, and he claims that the boxes are not

merchantable under the Arizona U.C.C. (Comp., ¶ 13).

DISCUSSION

In his Response to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 19), Plaintiff moves this Court

to grant him leave to amend his Complaint to add factual allegations relating to discrimination

by Cox as to signal quality and other facts relating to limitations on property owners in specific

areas in Phoenix. He also seeks leave to add a claim alleging that Cox and Scientific Atlanta

are joint tortfeasors engaged in violating federal statutes and related FCC regulations, and to

amend the relief requested as to Cox, Scientific Atlanta, and Co-Defendant DIMCO

Communications. 

Rule 15(a) provides that a “party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of

course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. In the present case,

no responsive pleading has been served by either of the Defendants that have filed the pending

Motions to Dismiss; thus, Plaintiff retains an automatic right to amend the pleadings a single

Case 2:07-cv-01320-SMM Document 31 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is not a responsive pleading within the

meaning Rule 15(a). See e.g., Shaver v. Operating Engineers Local 428 Pension Trust Fund,

332 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2003). 

2

The filing of an amended complaint replaces the previous complaint. Thus, the Court

finds it appropriate to deny the motion to dismiss without prejudice, with leave to refile if

necessary, based on the Amended Complaint. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th 2001); Hal

Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989); Bullen

v. De Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956). 

3

 See FN 2 supra.

- 3 -

time.1

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Cox’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with leave to

refile, if necessary, based on the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8). 2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Scientific Atlanta’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED

with leave to refile, if necessary, based on the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9).3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s request to file an Amended

Complaint.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01320-SMM Document 31 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3