Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00885/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00885-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

Carey M. Baca, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Steven R. Callahan, Lisa M. Callahan,

Keith M. Baca; SRC Sundance, LLC;

Unknown Parties named as Does 1thru

100, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-885-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Doc. 7, again is insufficient to state

a claim. To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain more than “labels and conclusions” or a

“formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action[;]” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The FAC sues ten Defendants and oftentimes does

little to clarify each Defendant’s role in the underlying transactions. Plaintiff further fails to

identify which of its claims apply to which Defendants. As a preliminary review of the FAC

suggests that not all Defendants would be liable for each claim, Plaintiff’s general allegations

Case 2:10-cv-00885-GMS Document 8 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

are insufficient to put each Defendant on notice of the particular claims against it. See

Jackson v. Nelson, 405 F.2d 872, 873 (9th Cir. 1968) (affirming dismissal where the

complaint did not specify which defendants took which actions); Allied Steel & Tractor

Prods., Inc. v. First Nat’l Bank of N.Y., 54 F.R.D. 256, 260 (N.D. Ohio 1971) (discussing that

even under “liberalized pleading requirements[,]” “merely identifying a party as a defendant

without alleging more” violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8). Accordingly, should

Plaintiff choose to file a second amended complaint, Plaintiff must identify which

Defendants are liable for which claims and must include factual detail supporting each

assertion. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing the First Amended Complaint, Doc. 7, with

leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by August 11, 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to file a Second Amended

Complaint by August 11, 2010, the Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss this action

without further Order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file a Second Amended

Complaint, the Complaint may not be served until and unless the Court screens the Second

Amended Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

DATED this 12th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00885-GMS Document 8 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2