Oscar Chayanne Ortiz Carreno v. The Edgewater Hotel Associates, LLC and Ben Hertel

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 26, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00250
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9

10 OSCAR CHAYANNE ORTIZ CARRENO, NO. 2:26-cv-00250-JHC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT THE 12 v. EDGEWATER HOTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC MOTION TO DISMISS 13 THE EDGEWATER HOTEL ASSOCIATES, PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)

14 LLC and BEN HERTEL,

15 Defendants.

16 17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 18 FRCP 12(b)(6). Dkt. # 11. The Court has considered the materials filed in support of and in 19 opposition to the motion, the rest of the file, and the governing law. The motion is noted for 20 March 30, 2026, but it is now fully briefed (see Dkt. ## 13 & 15) and ripe for decision. For the 21 reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion, DISMISSES the claims against Defendant 22 without prejudice, and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) governs a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 24 claim. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 25 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 1 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see 2 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 3 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff 4 pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 5 liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 6 “When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court must accept all material allegations 7 in the complaint as true, and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving 8 party.” Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013). But 9 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 10 statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). If a 11 complaint lacks a “cognizable legal theory” or “sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable 12 legal theory[,]” a court should dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Navarro v. 13 Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). 14 To the extent Plaintiff is asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the claim fails because 15 he does not allege that any defendant acted under color of state law. See generally Dkt. # 5. 16 Plaintiff says he alleges retaliation, but the complaint does not specify any protected conduct. 17 See id. Plaintiff says he alleges wrongful termination, but he alleges no facts from which to 18 infer a legal violation as to his discharge. See id. Plaintiff says he alleges discrimination, but the 19 complaint does not identify any protected class on which to base such a claim. See id. Nor does 20 he identify a legal basis for a “bad faith” claim. 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES all claims 22 against Defendants without prejudice. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend the 23 complaint. See Bacon v. Woodward, 104 F.4th 744, 753 (9th Cir. 2024) (“Even if a complaint is 24 deficient, we have repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no 25 request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be 1 || cured by the allegation of other facts.” (quotations omitted)). Plaintiff may file an amended 2 complaint on or before April 16, 2026. 3 Dated this 26" day of March, 2026. 4 5 Toh. 4, Chur 6 JOHN H. CHUN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT EDGEWATER’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 3 2:26-cv-00250-JHC