Hart v. City of Redwood City

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA > Case No.:21-CV-2653-YGR ‘ KRISTIN HART, ET AL., Plaintiffs ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MORE 7 DEFINITE STATEMENT AS MOOT vs. 8 Re: Dkt. No. 15 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, ET AL., Defendants.

11 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 15 □□ 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).)

17 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 20 order that plaintiffs further clarify their allegations of the sixth cause of action.

21 This terminates Docket No. 15.

22 IT Is SO ORDERED.

23 || Date: July 9, 2021 YVONNE ZALEZ ROGER) 24 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 28 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.