Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grissom v. Escalante Golf, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

July 3, 2019

TARA GRISSOM, Plaintiff,
v.
ESCALANTE GOLF, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          MICHAEL H. SIMON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Defendants Escalante Golf, Inc., and Escalante Pumpkin Ridge, LLC, move pursuant to Rules 12(f) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike or dismiss certain claims from Plaintiff Tara Grissom's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants' motion.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges that she was hired to work as a bartender and server at the Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club in April 2017 and that she worked there until October 7, 2017. Plaintiff asserts that she slipped and fell in the workplace and suffered on-the-job injuries on or about May 14, 2017. Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim in connection with those injuries on May 15, 2017. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants retaliated against her for seeking medical treatment by yelling at her, falsely accusing her of stealing money, and reducing her work schedule, among other allegations. Plaintiff brings this action for damages, alleging violations of several Oregon statutes.

         STANDARDS

         A court may strike from a pleading “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid spending time and money litigating spurious issues. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). The disposition of a motion to strike is within the discretion of the district court. See Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Gemini Mgmt., 921 F.2d 241, 244 (9th Cir. 1990). “Motions to strike are disfavored and infrequently granted.” Legal Aid Servs. of Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 561 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1189 (D. Or. 2008); see also Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 77 F.Supp.3d 850, 858 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“Motions to strike are regarded with disfavor because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice and because they are often used solely to delay proceedings.” (quotation marks and alterations omitted)).

         A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted only when there is no cognizable legal theory to support the claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wilson v. Hewlett- Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). To be entitled to a presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). The court must draw all reasonable inferences from the factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff. Newcal Indus. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1043 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). The court need not, however, credit the plaintiff's legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).

         DISCUSSION

         Defendants argue that all counts in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint that are duplicative of and redundant with Plaintiff's First, Fifth, and Seventh Claims for Relief should be stricken or dismissed. The Court addresses each purportedly duplicative claim in turn.

         A. Claim Two

         Plaintiff's Second Claim is titled, “Workers' Compensation Retaliation - Hostile Working Environment.” That claim states in its entirety: “Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 and 17 through 20. By their conduct Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a hostile working environment in substantial part because she invoked Oregon's worker's compensation system.” ECF 7. Defendants argue that this Claim incorporates the identical allegations from Plaintiff's First Claim, titled, “Workers' Compensation Retaliation - Terms and Conditions of Employment.” Defendants argue that because there is no difference between the factual allegations supporting either claim, and because each claim is brought under the same statute (Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.040), Claim two is redundant and should be stricken.

         Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that a hostile working environment is a distinct cause of action from “retaliation - terms and conditions of employment” when the two claims are brought under the same statute with identical factual allegations. In fact, Plaintiff acknowledges that “in essence, in her Second Claim for Relief, Plaintiff alleges that the cumulative effect of Defendant's multiple acts of retaliation which she realleges from paragraph 15(a)-(p) of her First Claim for Relief created an actionable hostile working environment for her.” ECF 24. Claim Two is redundant with Claim One. The Court, therefore, grants Defendants' motion to strike Claim Two.

         B. Claims Three, Four, and Nine

         Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief (Retaliation for Opposing Unlawful Employment Practices - Count One) and Fourth Claim for Relief (Retaliation for Opposing Unlawful Employment Practices - Count One) rely on the identical allegations underlying Plaintiff's First and Fifth Claims for Relief, adding only that Defendants violated O.R.S. § 659A.030(1)(f) in doing so. Plaintiff's Claim Nine is also brought under O.R.S. § 659A.030(1)(f), and labels substantially the same factual allegations as “Constructive Discharge in Retaliation for Opposing Unlawful Employment Practice.” Defendants further argue that because Plaintiff has asserted a violation of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.