Stricklin v. Glazer

Background

The court considered two motions to dismiss: Michael Young’s motion alleging failure to state a claim, and a motion by J. H. Glazer and C. J. Schaef, whom the order calls the Federal Defendants. Alivia J. Stricklin filed an opposition, but the court struck it because it was filed after the deadline under the district’s local rules. The court nevertheless considered whether the opposition would have changed the result and concluded that it would not.

The complaint asserted claims on behalf of deceased Lee A. Stricklin and claims on behalf of Alivia J. Stricklin herself. The opinion also addresses claims against Margurite Stricklin, the only defendant who had not appeared.

Reasons for dismissal

For claims brought on behalf of Lee A. Stricklin, the court found that the applicable statute of limitations barred the claims. Under California law, a survival action must be filed by the later of six months after death or the limitations period that would have applied if the person had lived. Lee A. Stricklin died on March 17, 2003. The court identified four years as the longest limitations period applicable to the claims described in the complaint, including claims under section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. Even assuming the claims accrued on the date of death, the court said the limitations period ended on March 17, 2007. The complaint was filed more than sixteen years later, and the court found no allegations supporting an exception to the limitations period.

For Alivia J. Stricklin’s individual claims, the court found that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule requires a complaint to provide enough factual content for the court to reasonably determine what happened and why the plaintiff may be entitled to relief. The court said the complaint did not identify the conduct that allegedly caused Alivia J. Stricklin’s injury or loss, explain how any defendant was responsible, or make clear what claim she was asserting in her individual capacity.

The court concluded that these grounds applied to the moving defendants and to Margurite Stricklin. Relying on a Ninth Circuit decision, it dismissed the complaint as to the nonmoving defendant as well because that defendant was similarly situated to the defendants who had moved for dismissal.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. It denied Alivia J. Stricklin’s motion for summary judgment as moot because the complaint was dismissed; the court also noted that the motion was procedurally deficient because it was not properly noticed. The court gave her leave to file a First Amended Complaint by February 2, 2024, to address the identified deficiencies or for other purposes. Judge Maxine Chesney vacated the scheduled hearing and continued the case-management conference from January 12, 2024, to April 5, 2024.