United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 6 of 27
1
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
2
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
3
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
4
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “The plausibility standard is
5
not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
6
has acted unlawfully.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). For purposes of ruling on a Rule
7
12(b)(6) motion, a court “accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the
8
pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire &
9
Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).
10
The Court, however, need not accept as true allegations contradicted by judicially
11
noticeable facts, see Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000), and it “may look
12
beyond the plaintiff’s complaint to matters of public record” without converting the Rule 12(b)(6)
13
motion into a motion for summary judgment, Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128, 1129 n.1 (9th Cir.
14
1995). Nor must the Court “assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in
15
the form of factual allegations.” Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (per
16
curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mere “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted
17
inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183
18
(9th Cir. 2004).
19
B. Leave to Amend
20
If the Court determines that the complaint should be dismissed, it must then decide
21
whether to grant leave to amend. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave
22
to amend “should be freely granted when justice so requires,” bearing in mind that “the underlying
23
purpose of Rule 15 . . . [is] to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or
24
technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). When dismissing
25
a complaint for failure to state a claim, “a district court should grant leave to amend even if no
26
request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly
27
28
6
Case No. 17-CV-06064-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION;
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION