Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05492/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05492-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05492-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STEVE CASTRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

G.L.R. CONSTRUCTION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-05492-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 19, 36

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Steve D. Castro (“Plaintiff”) filed a three-page “Employment Discrimination 

Complaint” on November 30, 2015, against Defendants G.L.R. Construction, Silicon Valley 

Crane, Inc., Joe O. Alexander Builder, Inc. and Andrew Shin Law Firm, through which Plaintiff 

purportedly asserts claims for employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964. Dkt. No. 1. Two of the defendants, Silicon Valley Crane and Andrew Shin Law 

Firm, move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 

Nos. 17, 19. Silicon Valley Crane also moves for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), and Andrew Shin Law Firm has filed a motion to strike two 

proclaimed amended complaints filed by Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 36. For his part, Plaintiff filed a 

document on February 17, 2016, which the court has construed as his opposition to the dismissal 

motions. Dkt. No. 30.1 

 

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition should have been filed and served no 

later than February 12, 2016. The court has nonetheless considered the opposition despite the 

untimely filing in light of Plaintiff’s unrepresented status and because the court finds no prejudice

Case 5:15-cv-05492-EJD Document 45 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05492-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Federal jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. These 

matters are suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for July 7, 2016, is VACATED. Because Plaintiff’s complaint 

is inconsistent with the pleading standard that applies to civil cases, the motions to dismiss must

be granted. The motion to strike will also be granted because the two amended complaints were 

not properly filed. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead each claim with sufficient 

specificity to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which 

it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). 

The factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” such 

that the claim “is plausible on its face.” Id. at 556-57. A complaint that falls short of the Rule 

8(a) standard may be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a 

cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. 

Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).

When deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the court must generally accept as 

true all “well-pleaded factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). The court 

must also construe the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United 

States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1988). However, “courts are not bound to accept as true a 

legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Also, the court generally does not consider any material beyond the pleadings for a Rule 

 

to the defendants from doing so. See Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff is notified, however, that he is expected to abide by all procedural rules in the future 

including those imposing filing deadlines. Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 

1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that a pro se party is “expected to abide by the rules of the court in 

which he litigates”). Future non-compliance may not be overlooked.

Case 5:15-cv-05492-EJD Document 45 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05492-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

12(b)(6) analysis. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19 

(9th Cir. 1990). Exceptions to this rule include material submitted as part of the complaint or 

relied upon in the complaint, and material subject to judicial notice. See Lee v. City of Los 

Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-69 (9th Cir. 2001).

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15

Amendments to pleadings are primarily governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 

Under Rule 15(a)(1), a party “may amend its pleading once as a matter of course” within 21 days 

after that pleading is served, or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or motion under 

Rule 12. “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s 

written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

“The law is clear that district courts have the inherent power to control their docket, and in 

the exercise of that power, they may properly strike improper documents.” Zepeda v. Paypal, Inc., 

No. C 10-2500 SBA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69297, at *12-13, 2013 WL 2147410 (N.D. Cal. May 

15, 2013). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff Failed to Satisfy the Applicable Pleading Standard

As a threshold matter, the court has reviewed the “Employment Discrimination 

Complaint” in its entirety to determine whether the pleading is consistent with Rule 8. It is not. 

“In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show (1) that he 

belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was subject to an adverse 

employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated 

more favorably.” Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the facts alleged in 

the Complaint - to the extent such facts are discernable - are not presented in a meaningful way

such that Plaintiff has stated a claim under the relevant elements. Indeed, it appears Plaintiffs has

utilized a publicly-available form complaint for discrimination claims arising under Title VII, but 

then failed to use its prompts to provide facts relevant to such claims. For example, although 

Case 5:15-cv-05492-EJD Document 45 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05492-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Section 5 of the Complaint requests that Plaintiff identify the type of discrimination he is 

asserting, Plaintiff did not place a mark next to any of the possible categories but instead provided 

bits of information on other topics. Plaintiff’s opposition, which resembles the Complaint in both 

form and content, is similarly unhelpful in sorting out the factual allegations. 

The result of this pleading style is a Complaint consisting only of incoherent, stream-ofconsciousness laced sentences and phrases that are not clearly connected to the elements of a 

discrimination claim. That is not enough, and it impedes a review of the pleading on its substance. 

Although the federal rules allow for a flexible pleading policy, particularly with regard to a 

plaintiff appearing pro se, a complaint must still provide fair notice of the claims and must allege 

enough facts to state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); 

Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Though Plaintiff’s Complaint 

falls well outside this description, it is worth noting that even “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and 

conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557) “‘[N]aked assertions’ devoid of ‘further 

factual enhancements’” are similarly insufficient. Id. “The plaintiff must allege with at least some 

degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.” 

Jones, 733 F.2d at 649 (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff has missed this mark, even under a 

liberal reading of the Complaint.

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to raise or present a cognizable legal 

theory, and because the Complaint is both confusing and rambling, the motions to dismiss will be 

granted and all of Plaintiffs claims will be dismissed. See Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 

F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996).

B. The Amended Complaints will be Stricken

As noted, Plaintiff filed two documents on February 22, 2016, and February 24, 2016, 

which purport to be amended complaints. Dkt. Nos. 31, 35. Andrew Shin Law Firm moves to 

strike these documents because they were filed outside the time permitted for amendment as a 

Case 5:15-cv-05492-EJD Document 45 Filed 07/05/16 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05492-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1), and without leave of court or the parties’ agreement.

The motion to strike is well-taken. Once the motions to dismiss were filed on January 26, 

2016, any amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(1) should have been filed on or before February 

16, 2016. Plaintiff’s amended complaints filed after that date are untimely and ineffective. They

will therefore be stricken. 

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. Nos. 17, 19) are 

GRANTED. All claims in the “Employment Discrimination Complaint” are DISMISSED WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND. 

The motion for more definite statement (Dkt. No. 17) is DENIED AS MOOT. The motion

to strike (Dkt. No. 36) is GRANTED, and the amended complaints filed in violation of Rule 15

(Dkt. Nos. 31, 35) are STRICKEN. 

Any amended complaint must be filed on or before July 29, 2016, and must be consistent 

with the discussion above. Plaintiff is advised that the court may dismiss this action without

further notice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if an amended 

complaint is not filed by the designated deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05492-EJD Document 45 Filed 07/05/16 Page 5 of 5