T.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILYN COUSART, et al., Case No. 23-cv-04557-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

v. DISMISS

OPENAI LP, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 53 Defendants.

The defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts of the case, the applicable legal standards, and the parties’ arguments. The plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, which spans almost 200 pages, fails to present “a short and plain statement” showing the plaintiffs are entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While the length of a complaint alone is unlikely to result in dismissal, when a complaint is needlessly long and contains largely irrelevant, distracting, or redundant information, dismissal under Rule 8(a) is appropriate. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the complaint is not only excessive in length, but also contains swaths of unnecessary and distracting allegations making it nearly impossible to determine the adequacy of the plaintiffs’ legal claims. To cite just a couple of…