McNeff
McNeff v. The City of Pleasanton
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 PETER MCNEFF, Case No. 23-cv-00106-AMO
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
v. BRIEFING
PLEASANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Re: Dkt. No. 48 et al., 11 Defendants.
12 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The Court is inclined to grant the motion and dismiss the case with prejudice, as two significant portions of the SAC are currently supported by little more than conclusory allegations. Specifically, McNeff alleges that Chief Swing “knew, or reasonably should have known” about the sources of certain complaints made against McNeff. See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 14-17. Similarly, McNeff alleges that the City Manager simultaneously delegated authority to Chief Swing and ratified Chief Swing’s decision to fire McNeff. See SAC ¶ 23. Both groups of allegations lack factual context or support. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,…