Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01458/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01458-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Cavanagh
Defendant
Steve Gilles
Defendant
David Hickey
Defendant
Joseph Kennedy
Plaintiff
Kings Mosquito Abatement District
Defendant

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

A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH KENNEDY; 

 Plaintiff,

 

 vs.

KINGS MOSQUITO ABATEMENT 

DISTRICT, MICHAEL CAVANAGH, an 

individual; STEVE GILLES, an individual; 

DAVID HICKEY, and individual; and 

DOES 1 through 25, 

 

 Defendants. 

 

1:12-cv-1458 AMI MJS

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

Doc. # 24

On May 3, 2013, Defendants Kings County Mosquito Abatement District (“District”), 

Michael Cavanagh, Steve Gilles, and David Hickey (“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss 

portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and concurrently filed a motion for a 

more definite statement. The court has addressed Defendants’ motion to dismiss portions of 

Plaintiff’s FAC in a separate opinion filed concurrently with this order. The court’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Order”) granted each 

subpart of Defendants’ motions to dismiss which has the following effect:

1. Plaintiff’s claims for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII or under FEHA are 

now confined to District. The individual Defendants have been dismissed from those 

claims.

2. Plaintiff’s claims for harassment are now confined to Defendants’ conduct based on 

Plaintiff’s race. Claims of harassment based on Plaintiff’s age or disability have been 

dismissed.

Case 1:12-cv-01458-AWI-MJS Document 33 Filed 07/31/13 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-

A

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Gilles for harassment have been dismissed. 

4. Plaintiff’s claims for discrimination, retaliation and harassment based on Plaintiff’s age 

have been dismissed as to all Defendants with leave to amend.

5. Plaintiff’s claims for failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA and Title VII have 

been dismissed as to all Defendants with prejudice.

6. Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress has been dismissed as to 

all Defendants with prejudice.

The court has reviewed Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement, Plaintiff’s 

opposition and Defendants’ reply. The court concludes that the issues raised by Defendant have 

been addressed by the court’s Order. The court agrees that the FAC as originally set forth was 

imprecise and occasionally ambiguous. However, as matters now stand, there is much less 

ambiguity; District is being sued under FEHA and Title VIII for discrimination and retaliation 

on the basis of race and disability, Cavanaugh and Hickey are being sued under the same statutes 

for harassment on the basis of race and District is being sued for failure to address harassment. 

Finally, District is being sued for discrimination on the basis of disability under ADA.

The court concludes that Plaintiff’s FAC, as now clarified by the court’s accompanying 

Order is sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of notice pleading. Plaintiff’s motion for 

a more definite statement will therefore be denied. Because a portion of Plaintiff’s FAC was 

dismissed with leave to amend, and because it is possible that the court has overlooked some 

other ambiguity in the remaining terms of Plaintiff’s FAC, the denial of the motion for a more 

definite statement is without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2013 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

0m8i788

Case 1:12-cv-01458-AWI-MJS Document 33 Filed 07/31/13 Page 2 of 2