Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00520/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00520-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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 07cv520

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLIE T. DANG,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv520 BTM (POR)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

GRANTING ALTERNATIVE MOTION

FOR A MORE DEFINITE

STATEMENT [Doc. #2]

vs.

SOLAR TURBINES, INC., a Caterpillar

Company,

Defendant.

On March 22, 2007, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an employment discrimination

complaint against his employer, Defendant Solar Turbines, Inc. The complaint appears to

allege violations of a number of federal laws, including the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination

in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Family Medical Leave Act, and Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The complaint also alleges violations of Section 51 of

California’s Unruh Act. In the complaint, Plaintiff lays out a history of his dealings with

Defendant, mostly pertaining to issues surrounding a medical leave that began in September

2003 and appears to have ended in March 2006, though Plaintiff has not been returned to

work. (Complaint, ¶¶ 6 - 21.) Plaintiff then summarily alleges that Defendant engaged in

“acts of malicious practice of employment, age, racial, sexual and disability discriminations,

[and] intentional employment discrimination and retaliation.” (Id., ¶ 21.)

On April 19, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, a

Case 3:07-cv-00520-MMA-JMA Document 7 Filed 07/03/07 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 07cv520

motion for a more definite statement of the claims made by Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(e). Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claim for relief because

the facts alleged do not constitute a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

Defendant claims that Plaintiff has no legally viable claim under FMLA because Plaintiff’s

disability leave lasted longer than the 12 weeks allowed under FMLA and its decision to

require Plaintiff to receive a fitness-for-duty clearance before allowing him to return to work

was permissible under federal regulations. It argues that it has no legal duty to find a

position for Plaintiff to return to after a leave of 2 1⁄2 years. Defendant also argues that

Plaintiff has failed to make any substantive allegations that would support a claim of illegal

age, racial, sexual or disability discrimination, or retaliation related thereto. Defendant also

argues that Plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination are not cognizable under the

Unruh Act. As an alternative to dismissal, Defendant asks for a more definite statement of

Plaintiff’s claims so that it might properly frame a responsive pleading.

Plaintiff has filed a lengthy opposition to Defendant’s motion in which he endeavors

to explain in some detail the facts relevant to each of his legal claims, including claims that

are not based on FMLA. The opposition appears to be, in part, Plaintiff’s attempt to correct

some of the deficiencies of his original complaint, as the opposition is also titled “AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.” (See cover page of Pl.’s Opp. Mem.) For instance,

Defendant had pointed out in its motion that the caption of Plaintiff’s original complaint listed

six claims, only one of which was actually a cause of action or claim and not a prayer for

relief. Underneath where Plaintiff indicated “AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES” on

the cover page of his opposition, he also specified eight corrected causes of action, including

“1. Disability Discrimination” and “6. Racial Discrimination.” Thus, it appears that Plaintiff’s

opposition attempts to set forth the more definite statement of Plaintiff’s claims that

Defendant is requesting. In addition, Plaintiff has set forth reasons why Defendant’s

assertions regarding the facts surrounding his leave of absence, which are the basis for his

FMLA claim, are not correct.

Case 3:07-cv-00520-MMA-JMA Document 7 Filed 07/03/07 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 07cv520

Accordingly, the Court has determined that Plaintiff’s complaint need not be dismissed

for failure to state a claim. Even if Plaintiff’s original complaint could be dismissed in whole

or in part, it seems obvious that Plaintiff is able to amend his complaint to more properly state

his claims for relief. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must liberally construe his

pleadings and, “before dismissing an action, a court should always be certain that other less

drastic alternatives are not available.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987);

accord Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980) (“[A] [pro se] complaint should not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”). The Court

finds that any pleading deficiencies in Plaintiff’s original complaint can likely be remedied by

affording him the opportunity to file an amended complaint, which is exactly what Defendant

asks for in his alternative motion for a more definite statement.

The Court recognizes that Defendant may be correct in arguing that Plaintiff has failed

to properly state a claim for relief under the Equal Pay Act or the Unruh Act. However, as

the Court would allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint even if it granted

dismissal of these claims, the Court will wait until Plaintiff files an amended complaint that

provides a more definite statement before addressing these issues if Defendant should

choose to file any renewed motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff has argued that his opposition provides all the detail that Defendant needs to

frame a responsive pleading and, therefore, the motion for a more definite statement is moot.

However, Defendant is correct that a detailed memorandum in opposition to a motion to

dismiss is not a substitute for a properly filed amended complaint, even for a pro se litigant.

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Defendant’s alternative motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED.

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-00520-MMA-JMA Document 7 Filed 07/03/07 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 07cv520

Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint, which adheres to the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), including “a short and plain statement of [each] claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” on or before July 27, 2007. Plaintiff shall title

his amended pleading “First Amended Complaint” and, in accordance with Civil Local Rule

15.1, it shall be “retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the

superseded pleading.” In addition, the amended complaint “shall contain copies of all

exhibits referred to” therein. CivLR 15.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 3, 2007

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00520-MMA-JMA Document 7 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 4