Hart v. City of Redwood City

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA > Case No.:21-CV-2653-YGR ‘ KRISTIN HART, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AS MOOT vs.

Re: Dkt. No. 15

CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Defendants move for a more definite statement from plaintiffs regarding their sixth cause of /action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.! Defendants contend that they “cannot frame a ° = 13 responsive pleading because the nature of the claim that [p]laintiffs are pursuing is uncertain”: negligent infliction of emotional distress, as the cause of action is labeled, or intentional infliction □□ emotional distress, as suggested by the use of the words “reckless disregard” and “intentional” within the relevant allegations. (Dkt. No. 15 at 2 (citing Complaint 4] 52—56).)

In light of plaintiffs’ opposition brief confirming that they are pleading a cause of action for Z 18 ||negligent infliction of emotional distress (Dkt. No. 16 at 3), the Court accepts the framing as the law of the case, and DENIES AS MOOT the motion for a more definite statement. The Court declines order that plaintiffs further clarify their allegations of the sixth cause of action.

This terminates Docket No. 15.

IT Is SO ORDERED.

Date: July 9, 2021

YVONNE ZALEZ ROGER) NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

97 ' The Court has determined that the motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 728-29 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for July 13, 2021.