Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00567/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00567-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
British Airways
Defendant
Expedia Travel
Defendant
Jean Marc Van den Heuvel
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EXPEDIA TRAVEL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0567 JAM AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 This lawsuit was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court. See ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiff is proceeding in pro per, and the matter was accordingly referred to the magistrate judge 

by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). 

 Defendant British Airways has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the 

complaint does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8, and therefore should be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff timely filed an opposition, although it is entitled 

“Motion To Proceed to Discovery & Jury Trial.” ECF No. 9.1

 For the reasons that follow, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to comply with 

Rule 8, and plaintiff will be granted 30 days to file an amended complaint. 

 

1

 At the hearing on this matter, plaintiff confirmed that this document was intended to be his 

opposition. Plaintiff filed another Opposition the day before the hearing. ECF No. 13. The court 

has considered both documents. 

Case 2:16-cv-00567-JAM-AC Document 15 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 5
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

I. THE COMPLAINT 

 The removed state court complaint contains only the check-off items provided, but no 

attachments to set forth any of the underlying facts. Thus, all that is alleged is that defendants 

entered into a contract and breached it, and that they also engaged in “False advertisements, 

criminal acts of cruelty, deception of persons,” “victims to unfair conditions,” and “Bank theft 

with credit card.” ECF No. 1 at 6-7. 

II. MOTION TO DISMISS 

 A. Rule 8 

 Because this lawsuit is now pending in federal court, plaintiff’s complaint must be written 

to comply with the federal standards set forth at “Rule 8” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at 

www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 

Specifically, plaintiff must draft his complaint so that it contains a short and plain statement 

showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the 

starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits 

of a claim”).2

 Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). 

Thus, the amended complaint must contain a short and plaint statement of the facts underlying the 

claims, not just legal conclusions. It “must contain sufficient factual content to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face . . ..” Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 

641 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (affirming dismissal under Rule 8 for 

failure to state a plausible claim), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1845 (2015). 

 B. Analysis 

 Defendant correctly points out that that the complaint here does not allege any factual 

 

2

 The amended complaint should also contain a “short and plain statement” of the basis for 

federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is in this federal court, rather than in a state court). 

Rule 8(a)(1). The court notes that the basis on which defendant removed the case is “diversity 

jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. 

Case 2:16-cv-00567-JAM-AC Document 15 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 5
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

matters, and therefore is in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint alleges only the 

legal conclusions that defendant breached a contract, without alleging the underlying facts 

showing that the elements of breach of contract were met. The same is true of the other claims 

alleged. Defendant is entitled to know the basic facts underlying plaintiff’s complaint, so that it 

can defend against the lawsuit. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaint 

“must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the 

opposing party to defend itself effectively”), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2101 (2012).

 Defendant addresses what it believes to be the underlying facts in its Motion To Dismiss, 

but those facts are nowhere alleged in the complaint. The complaint will therefore be dismissed 

under Rule 8. 

 In fairness to plaintiff, the form that he filled out is a state court check-off form. Although 

the form allows plaintiff to attach the “causes of action,” it is not surprising that a non-lawyer 

could conclude that just filling out the form itself would be enough to at least get his lawsuit 

started. Plaintiff will therefore be given a chance to file an amended complaint that clearly states 

what plaintiff’s claims are and why he is entitled to relief.3

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss (ECF No. 7), is GRANTED, with leave to amend; 

 2. The complaint is dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and plaintiff is granted 30 days 

from the date of this order to file an amended complaint; 

 3. Plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed to Discovery & Jury Trial (ECF No. 9), is DENIED as 

moot; 

 4. Plaintiff is advised that forms are available to help him, as a pro se plaintiff, to 

organize his amended complaint in the proper way. The forms are available at the Clerk’s Office, 

 

3

 At the hearing on this motion, the undersigned indicated that “Findings and Recommendations” 

would issue which would be submitted to the district judge, who would then separately to rule on 

the matter. However, since the motion is being decided on Rule 8 grounds, plaintiff is being 

given the opportunity to amend his complaint, and this decision does not touch on the merits of 

plaintiff’s claims, it is more appropriate to conserve scarce judicial resources by issuing this order 

instead. 

Case 2:16-cv-00567-JAM-AC Document 15 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 5
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

501 I Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, and also online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/prose-forms. 

 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should contain separately numbered, clearly identified 

claims. In addition, the allegations of the amended complaint must be set forth in sequentially 

numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 

paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 

complaint. 

 Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must 

avoid narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 

happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 

give a running account of plaintiff's hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 

contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 

 The federal rules also contemplate brevity. Plaintiff's claims must be set forth simply, 

concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) (“[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise and 

direct”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[t]he Federal Rules require that 

averments ‘be simple, concise, and direct’”). 

 Finally, Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once 

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the 

case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Lastly, the court reminds plaintiff 

that his amended complaint must be filed in this court, not in state court; and 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-00567-JAM-AC Document 15 Filed 05/19/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

 5. Plaintiff is further advised that failure to amend his complaint within 30 days may 

result in a recommendation to the district judge that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: May 18, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00567-JAM-AC Document 15 Filed 05/19/16 Page 5 of 5