Opinion ID: 349320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the amended complaint

Text: 23 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . . The district court granted Local 36's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 24 For purposes of review, the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true. Reimche v. First National Bank of Nevada,512 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1975); Walling v. Beverly Enterprises, 476 F.2d 393, 395 (9th Cir. 1973); 2A Moore's Federal Practice P 12.08 at 2266 (2d ed. 1975). The standard of review is that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Bodine Produce, 494 F.2d at 556. 25 The appellants charge in their amended complaint that the appellees have combined and conspired 26 (A) To fix and maintain the price which plaintiffs may charge defendants for their services in the Southern District of California; 27 (B) To enter into an agreement, (Article XVI-C of the MLA), which fixes and maintains the price which plaintiffs may charge defendants for their services in the Southern District of California; 28 (C) To eliminate the plaintiffs as competitors in the Southern District of California; 29 (D) To enter into an agreement, (Article XVI-C of the MLA), to eliminate the plaintiffs as competitors in the Southern District of California;(E) To restrain defendants members from doing business with the plaintiffs members; 30 (F) To enter into an agreement, (Article XVI-C of the MLA), to restrain defendants from doing business with the plaintiffs members; 31 (G) To boycott the plaintiffs; and 32 (H) To enter into an agreement, (Article XVI-C of the MLA), to boycott the plaintiffs. 33 Amended Complaint P 15. 34 The allegations relating to the MLA fail to state a claim under the law discussed supra. The appellants do generally aver that the appellees have unlawfully combined and conspired by other means. These allegations, however, are very broad and vague. 35 Rule 8(a)(2) requires that the complaint give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. at 47, 78 S.Ct. at 103. Accord Bodine Produce, 494 F.2d at 556; 2A Moore's Federal Practice P 8.13 (2d ed. 1975). The court concludes that the amended complaint fails to adequately inform the appellees of the appellants' claim of a combination or conspiracy aside from the MLA. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the district court with instructions that the appellants have leave to further amend their complaint to state a cause of action based upon a conspiracy or contract other than the MLA. 36 REVERSED AND REMANDED.