Grosz

Grosz v. Lassen Community College District

Good Law
572 F. Supp. 2d 1199·2008 WL 3861995·2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72805
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 19, 2008Civ. S-07-697 FCD/CMKCalifornia8,203 words

Opinion

Opinion

Damrell, J.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendants Lassen Community College Dis trict’s (“District”) and Homer Cissell’s (“Cissell”) (collectively, “defendants”) motions to dismiss plaintiffs Karen Grosz, Bernadette Chavez, Vicki Ramsey, Mary Kristina Bishop, Sandra Beckwith, Toni Poulson, Katherine Leao and Denise Stevenson’s (collectively, “plaintiffs”) third amended complaint (“TAC”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and motions to strike plaintiffs’ request for punitive and liquidated damages, pursuant to Rule 12(f).

Plaintiffs have not, as previously directed by the court, provided the requisite information to plead any of their claims for relief. Accordingly, as the court, in two prior orders, dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Rule 8(a), and plaintiffs, once again, fail to plead the essential facts necessary to state their claims, defendants’ motions to dismiss and to strike are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ TAC is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

On April 26, 2007, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, as of right, against defendants. In response to defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)…

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.