Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00697/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00697-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sandra Beckwith
Plaintiff
Mary Kristina Bishop
Plaintiff
Board of Trustees of Lassen Community College District
Defendant
Bernadette Chavez
Plaintiff
Homer Cissell
Defendant
Marshel Couso
Plaintiff
Karen Grosz
Plaintiff
Lassen Community College District
Defendant
Katherine Leao
Plaintiff
Toni Poulsen
Plaintiff
Vicki Ramsey
Plaintiff
Denise Stevenson
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

KAREN GROSZ; BERNADETTE

CHAVEZ; VICKI RAMSEY; MARY

KRISTINA BISHOP; SANDRA

BECKWITH; TONI POULSEN;

MARSHEL COUSO; KATHERINE LEAO;

and DENISE STEVENSON;

NO. CIV. S-07-697 FCD CMK

PlaintiffS,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LASSEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT; HOMER CISSELL; BOARD

OF TRUSTEES OF LASSEN

COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

 On April 26, 2007, plaintiffs Karen Grosz, Bernadette

Chavez, Vicki Ramsey, Mary Kristina Bishop, Sandra Beckwith, Toni

Poulsen, Marshel Couso, Katherine Leao, and Denise Stevenson

(collectively “plaintiffs”) filed a first amended complaint (the

“complaint”), as of right, against defendants Lassen Community

College District, Homer Cissell, and the Board of Trustees of

Lassen Community College District (collectively “defendants”). 

On June 19, 2007, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ 

Case 2:07-cv-00697-KJM-CMK Document 21 Filed 08/17/07 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

1 Defendant Lassen Community College District filed a

motion on its own behalf and on behalf of the Board of Trustees.

(Docket #9.) Defendant Homer Cissell, represented by separate

counsel, filed his own motion. (Docket #7.) 

2 Plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition to

defendants’ motions. (Docket #13.) Plaintiffs assert therein

that defendants’ motions are untimely. Plaintiffs are incorrect. 

Defendants electronically filed and served their motions on June

19, 2007, setting the hearing for August 24, 2007. Pursuant to

Local Rule 78-230(b), defendants’ motions had to be filed and

served on or before July 25, 2007.

3 Although the court does not entertain defendants’

motions to dismiss on the merits, it nevertheless cautions

plaintiffs that their claims against Lassen Community College

District, its President in his official capacity, and the Board

of Trustees of Lassen Community College District, as presently

plead, may well be barred under the Eleventh Amendment to the

United States Constitution. See Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State

Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989); Cerrato v. San Francisco

Community College Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 1994); Wasson

v. Sonoma County Jr. College Dist., 4 F. Supp. 2d 893, 901-902

(N.D. Cal. 1997). In filing a second amended complaint,

plaintiffs should consider closely defendants’ arguments

regarding Eleventh Amendment immunity as set forth in the motions

to dismiss.

2

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1

Plaintiffs oppose defendants’ motions.2 

Because the court concludes that the complaint lacks the

necessary information to place defendants on proper notice and to

give them adequate ability to respond as required by Rule 8(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it does not reach the

merits of defendants’ motions to dismiss.3 While the complaint

is fraught with conclusory statements of the law and sweeping

allegations of discrimination and general misconduct, it lacks

the necessary information to render the complaint a “short and

plain statement of the claim[s]” required by Rule 8(a). The

Seventh Circuit recently elaborated on the meaning of Rule 8(a)’s

Case 2:07-cv-00697-KJM-CMK Document 21 Filed 08/17/07 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

4 For example, plaintiffs make broad and conclusory 

allegations that “Cissell has failed and refused to promote

female employees while male employees are promoted under similar

or lesser circumstances;” “Plaintiff Karen Grosz has been

required by Cissell to accept blame for his mistakes, accept

criticism from Cissell without response before the Board;” and

“Plaintiff Benadette Chavez has been treated differently than

similarly situated male employees who are faculty at the Lassen

Community College District in that she has been in fear of her

safety and security because of the Defendant Cassel’s [sic]

refusal to discipline aggressive and violent male employees who

have attacked and threatened to attack female faculty members.”

(Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 17, 28, 37.) 

3

short and plain statement requirement:

Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings

straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties

need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.

Federal judges have better things to do, and the

substantial subsidy of litigation (court costs do not

begin to cover the expense of the judiciary) should be

targeted on those litigants who take the preliminary

steps to assemble a comprehensible claim.

U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378

(7th Cir. 2003). 

Rule 8(a) does not permit plaintiffs to file a complaint

premised solely on generalized allegations of discrimination4

 in

order to justify a fishing expedition into potential violations

by defendants. Plaintiffs are not required to plead detailed

facts, but they must plead some facts. See DM Research Inc. v.

College of American Pathologists, 170 F.3d 53, 55 (1st Cir. 1999)

(while the complaint need not provide evidentiary detail, “the

price of entry, even to discovery, is for [the] plaintiff to

allege a factual predicate concrete enough to warrant further

proceedings, which may be costly and burdensome. Conclusory

allegations in a complaint, if they stand alone, are a danger

sign that the plaintiff is engaged in a fishing expedition.”). 

Case 2:07-cv-00697-KJM-CMK Document 21 Filed 08/17/07 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

The Supreme Court has recently stated that “without some factual

allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant

could satisfy the requirement of providing not only ‘fair notice’

of the nature of the claim, but also ‘grounds’ on which the claim

rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 n.3

(2007). Moreover, the court “need not assume the truth of legal

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” United

States ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th

Cir. 1986).

In this case, the court is particularly troubled by the

complaint’s surprising dearth of information pertaining to

plaintiffs’ occupations and dates of employment, if any, with the

Lassen Community College District. Because of this complete lack

of information, the complaint clearly does not provide defendants

with “fair notice” of the nature of the claims or the “grounds”

on which the claims rest. “A plaintiff’s obligation to provide

the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . .” Bell Atlantic,

127 S.Ct. at 1964-65. Further, the complaint is unclear as to

the allegations against defendant Cissell, particularly whether

he is being sued in his official or individual capacity. Without

these rudimentary facts, the complaint inexorably falls below the

standard set forth in Rule 8(a).

To permit plaintiffs to “hide the ball” by not providing

vital facts such as plaintiffs’ occupations and dates of

employment would read the “fair notice” requirement out of Rule

8(a) and would seriously undermine the rule’s goal of encouraging

Case 2:07-cv-00697-KJM-CMK Document 21 Filed 08/17/07 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

expeditious resolution of disputes. Therefore, for the foregoing

reasons, the court makes the following orders: 

 (1) Plaintiffs shall file and serve a second amended

complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this

order, which complies with Rule 8(a). Plaintiffs shall

supplement their complaint with pertinent information

which will allow defendants to properly and fully

answer it.

(2) Defendants shall file their responses to the second

amended complaint within 30 days of service thereof.

(3) Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss are VACATED as

MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 17, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00697-KJM-CMK Document 21 Filed 08/17/07 Page 5 of 5