Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01087/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01087-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALETA GUTHREY, a conserved adult, 

through her Conservator, Areta 

Guthrey; and ARETA GUTHREY, an 

individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALTA CALIFORNIA REGIONAL 

CENTER, a California non-profit 

corporation; ON MY OWN 

INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES, 

INC., a California corporation, ON MY 

OWN COMMUNITY SERVICES, a 

California non-profit corporation; MARY 

MCGLADE, an individual; MICHELLE 

RAMIREZ, an individual; S.T.E.P. INC., 

a California corporation, TAMMY 

SMITH,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-01087-MCE-EFB

ORDER

In instituting the present lawsuit, Plaintiffs Aleta Guthrey, a conserved adult, 

through her Conservator, Areta Guthrey, and Areta Guthrey, as an individual,

(collectively “Plaintiffs” unless otherwise specified) allege violations of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1983, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act 

and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution on grounds that Aleta 

Case 2:18-cv-01087-MCE-JDP Document 46 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 4
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

Guthrey was wrongfully denied access to services, and suffered retaliation and 

discrimination when she asserted her rights to such services. 

Now before the Court are four different Motions filed by various groups of 

Defendants. All four Motions argue that Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state any viable 

claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

1 and alternatively request

that a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). First, Defendants Strategies to 

Empower People, Inc. (“STEP”), and Tammy Smith filed a Motion to Dismiss on 

February 4, 2020. ECF No. 17. This was followed on February 7, 2020 by a similar 

motion filed on behalf of Defendant On My Own Independent Living Services, Inc. along 

with individually-named Defendants Mary McGlade and Michelle Ramirez. ECF No. 19. 

Then, the other On My Own entity, On My Own Community Services, filed its own 

motion on February 10, 2020. ECF No. 21. Finally, the last remaining named 

Defendant, Alta California Regional Center, moved to dismiss on April 16, 2020. ECF 

No. 39.

Despite purporting to sue seven different individuals and entities and including six 

separate causes of action, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not specify which of those claims 

are pled against which Defendants, or whether they are being asserted against all of 

them. In addition, despite naming two different “On My Own” entities as enumerated 

above, the body of the Complaint refers only to “On My Own” generically, leaving the two 

organizations to guess as to what allegations are directed to each entity. Moreover, the 

allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are not even numbered, which further 

compounds the difficulty encountered in formulating any meaningful analysis.

Rule 12(e) provides that “[i]f a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner 

that provides sufficient notice, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under 

12(e) before responding.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); 

Evans-Marshall v. Board of Educ. Of Tipp City Exempted Village School Dist., 428 F. 3d 

1 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 

otherwise noted.

Case 2:18-cv-01087-MCE-JDP Document 46 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 4
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

223, 228 (6th Cir. 2005). “[T]he proper test in evaluating a motion under Rule 12(e) is 

whether the complaint provides the defendant with a sufficient basis to frame his 

responsive pleadings.” Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Musacchio, 695 F. Supp. 

1053, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 1988). A Rule 12(e) motion is appropriate when the complaint is 

“so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot respond, even with a simple 

denial, in good faith or without prejudice to himself.” Cellars v. Pacific Coast Packaging, 

Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Granting a motion under Rule 12(e) is a 

matter subject to the court’s sound discretion. See McHenry v Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 

1179 (9th Cir. 1996).

In the absence of specifying what claims and causes of action are directed 

against which of the seven named Defendants, Defendants cannot possibly be expected 

to appropriately respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint without engaging in speculation as to 

just what Plaintiffs intend. That shortcoming on Plaintiffs’ part clearly fails to provide 

Defendants adequate notice of the claims being levied against them, and in that 

absence Rule 12(e) mandates that a more definite statement be provided before 

Defendants can possibly respond.

Defendants’ Motions (ECF Nos. 17, 19, 21, 39) are accordingly GRANTED to the 

extent Defendants request relief under Rule 12(e).2 Given the fundamental failing of 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint in specifying which claims are directed against which Defendants, 

making any ruling on Defendants’ requests for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) as to the 

particular causes of action Plaintiffs purport to assert is premature, and Defendants’ 

requests in that regard are accordingly DENIED, without prejudice to being reinstituted 

once the scope of Plaintiffs’ Complaint becomes more clear.

Plaintiffs are directed to file a First Amended Complaint, should they choose to do 

so, not later than twenty (20) days after the date this Order is electronically filed. While 

the substantive arguments as to the infirmities of Plaintiffs’ particular claims are being 

2 Having determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered the 

Motions submitted on the briefs in accordance with E.D. Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:18-cv-01087-MCE-JDP Document 46 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 4
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

deferred at this time, Plaintiffs should nonetheless consider those arguments when 

formulating their amended pleading. Finally, should Plaintiffs fail to file an amended 

pleading within the time parameters described above, Plaintiffs are advised that this 

lawsuit will be dismissed, with prejudice and without further notice to the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-01087-MCE-JDP Document 46 Filed 06/15/20 Page 4 of 4