McNeff v. The City of Pleasanton

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 PETER MCNEFF, Case No. 23-cv-00106-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL 9 v. BRIEFING

10 PLEASANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Re: Dkt. No. 48 et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint 14 (“SAC”). The Court is inclined to grant the motion and dismiss the case with prejudice, as two 15 significant portions of the SAC are currently supported by little more than conclusory allegations. 16 Specifically, McNeff alleges that Chief Swing “knew, or reasonably should have known” about 17 the sources of certain complaints made against McNeff. See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 14-17. Similarly, 18 McNeff alleges that the City Manager simultaneously delegated authority to Chief Swing and 19 ratified Chief Swing’s decision to fire McNeff. See SAC ¶ 23. Both groups of allegations lack 20 factual context or support. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals 21 of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). 22 Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to submit a brief of no more than three (3) pages 23 describing what factual detail, if any, he could add in support of these two groups of allegations if 24 permitted leave to amend further. Plaintiff shall file his brief within seven days from the date of 25 this order. Defendant may file a response, also not to exceed three pages, within seven days after 26 Plaintiff’s filing. 27 // 1 The Court VACATES the hearing set for May 30, 2024. 3 Dated: May 29, 2024 4 □ 5 col ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28