Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. - 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167737 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2016)

Rule:

While "detailed factual allegations" are not required, a complaint must have sufficient factual allegations to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."

Facts:

Plaintiff Hayley Moore contended that she was a victim of sexual assault while a student at the University of California, Santa Barbara ("UCSB"). In her lawsuit filed in federal district court against defendant Regents of the University Of California, Moore claimed that the University of California ("University") responded with deliberate indifference when she reported her assault to school officials. The order dismissing Moore's second amended complaint ("SAC") explained that her allegations were insufficient to hold the University liable for gender discrimination in violation of 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq. ("Title IX") and granted limited leave to amend. Rather than supplement, clarify, or explain her prior allegations, Moore simply repeated verbatim the allegations of the SAC in her third amended complaint ("TAC"). There were no new allegations about the University's response to her reported assault. Instead, the TAC added new individual defendants and a new claim against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a handful of quotes from the University policy on sexual harassment and sexual assault. The University filed a motion to dismiss the TAC without leave to amend.

Issue:

Was the University's motion to dismiss meritorious?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Th court granted the University's motion to dismiss without leave to amend. The court held that Moore's failure to add relevant allegations suggested further leave to amend would be futile. Moore's new allegations under Title IX did not alter the prior analysis in which it was found that Moore failed to establish a claim under Title IX. Moreover, Moore's new claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 was based on the same underlying facts alleged in the SAC, and her allegations were insufficient to support that new claim.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class