Bagnall

Bagnall v. CSU Maritime

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 29, 20242:23-cv-01606California663 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Eric James Bagnall, No. 2:23-cv-01606-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, ORDER v. California State University Maritime, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 51. The matter is fully briefed, and the court held a hearing on July 12, 2024. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 53; Reply, ECF No. 54; Mins., ECF No. 59. In response to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court begins by assuming the complaint’s factual allegations are true, but not its legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The court then determines 23 whether those factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief” under Rule 8. /d. 24 at 679. For plaintiff to succeed on his state law claims (Counts I-VI), he must show…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.