United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2026

Linda Joyce Reeves v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Linda Joyce Reeves v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided January 28, 2026
Linda Joyce Reeves v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 LINDA JOYCE REEVES, Case No. 25-cv-06555-LB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS 14 GREYHOUND LINES, INC., Re: ECF No. 37 15 Defendant.

17 This case has two prior orders allowing the claims of negligence and breach of contract to proceed, given the court’s undisputed diversity jurisdiction. The court directed the plaintiff to file a supplement to add facts to establish plausible federal claims.1 The plaintiff supplemented her complaint, and the defendant moved to dismiss all claims.2 The court adopts the fact recitations and legal analysis in its earlier orders by this reference and does not repeat them here. In short, the plaintiff — who allegedly suffered injury on her trip on a Greyhound bus — plausibly pleaded claims for breach of contract and negligence but did not plead federal claims. Her supplemental complaint did not cure this deficiency. The defendant contends that the plaintiff did not plausibly Orders – ECF Nos. 7, 32. The parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The court can address the dispute without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Consents – ECF Nos. 6, 16. 28 U.S.C. § 27 636(c)(1). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

1 state state claims either.’ Pleading the legal effect of the contract is sufficient. Miles v. Deutsche || Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 236 Cal. App. 4th 394, 402 (2015). The negligence claim survives because the disputed facts supporting a denial of the duty of care that attaches to common carriers are better || addressed at summary judgment.* 5 This disposes of ECF No. 37.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated: January 27, 2026 Lit EC LAUREL BEELER 9 United States Magistrate Judge qa 12 «14

Oo Z 18 27 > Mot. — ECF No. 37 at 9-15; Reply — ECF No. 41 at 3-7.

28 || 4 See Order — ECF No. 7 at 5-6 (legal standard).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.