Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Hildale DOJ Motion to Dismiss 082712

Hildale DOJ Motion to Dismiss 082712

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19 |Likes:
Published by Lindsay Whitehurst
Motion to dismiss federal civil rights suit filed by attorneys for Hildale Utah, town dominated by members of polygamous sect led by Warren Jeffs.
Motion to dismiss federal civil rights suit filed by attorneys for Hildale Utah, town dominated by members of polygamous sect led by Warren Jeffs.

More info:

Published by: Lindsay Whitehurst on Aug 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728PETER STIRBA, Utah Bar No. 3118R. BLAKE HAMILTON, Utah Bar No. 11395KATHLEEN ABKE, Utah Bar No. 12422 
STIRBA & ASSOCIATES
215 South State Street, Suite 750P.O. Box 810Salt Lake City, Utah 84110-0810Telephone: (801) 364-8300Facsimile: (801) 364-8355kabke@stirba.com Attorneys for Defendants City of Hildale, Utah, TwinCity Power and Twin City Water Authority, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,Plaintiff,v.Town of Colorado City, Arizona; City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Power; and TwinCity Water Authority, Inc.,Defendants.Case No. CV-12-8123-PCT-HRH
HILDALE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONTO DISMISS COMPLAINT OR INTHE ALTERNATIVE FOR A MOREDEFINITE STATEMENT(Oral Argument Requested)
Defendants City of Hildale, Utah (“Hildale”), Twin City Power, and Twin CityWater Authority, Inc. (collectively the “Hildale Defendants”) hereby moves this Court todismiss plaintiff United States of America’s (“United States”) Complaint [Doc. 1], or inthe alternative, to enter an order directing the United States to provide a more definitestatement with respect to certain facts alleged in its Complaint. This relief is necessary because the United States has failed to sufficiently plead the allegations in the Complaintand has thereby failed as a matter of law to state a claim upon which relief can be grantedas to all of their causes of action against the Hildale Defendants. At a minimum, certainfactual allegations are so vague and ambiguous that the Hildale Defendants are unable tointelligently and reasonably prepare a responsive pleading. This Motion is brought
!"#$%&'()*+,*-.()&*/0/%%%12+34$56%)(%%%789$:%-.;)<;()%%%=">$%(%2?%(@
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2
 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(e) of the
 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and issupported by the following memorandum of points and authorities.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The United States alleges three causes of action against one or more of the HildaleDefendants: (1) that Hildale is engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives person of their First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 14141
1
;(2) the Hildale Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the fullenjoyment of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act or have denied a group of personsrights granted by the Fair Housing Act under 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a)
2
; and (3) that Hildalehas denied individuals equal utilization of a public facility on the basis of religion inviolation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000(b)
3
. The United States has failed to meet its pleadingobligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and therefore, all three causes of action should bedismissed. Alternatively, the United States should be required to clarify certain ambiguousfactual allegations by providing more specific information such that the HildaleDefendants can reasonably prepare their Answer.
I. ALL CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE HILDALE DEFENDANTSSHOULD BE DISMISSED.A. The Rule 12(b)(6) Standard.
A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing thatthe pleader is entitled to relief.” F
ED
. R. C
IV
. P. 8(a)(2). While Rule 8 “does not require
detailed 
factual allegations, …it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d.868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 & 570,(2007))(emphasis added). As the Supreme Court stated in Ashcroft,
1
See Complaint, at ¶¶ 51 – 56.
2
Id., at ¶¶ 57 – 61.
3
Id., at ¶¶ 62 – 63.
!"#$%&'()*+,*-.()&*/0/%%%12+34$56%)(%%%789$:%-.;)<;()%%%=">$%)%2?%(@
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
3
A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of theelements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if ittenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.129 S.Ct. at 1949. (internal quotations and citations omitted).A complaint is subject to dismissal if it “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” F
ED
. R. C
IV
. P. 12(b)(6). To state a claim sufficient to survive a Rule12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, acceptedas true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility in this context exists where the plaintiff “pleadsfactual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant isliable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In other words,the Complaint’s allegations must “nudge [plaintiff’s] claims…across the line fromconceivable to plausible.” Id., at 1951.The United States Supreme Court employs a two-step analysis to determinewhether a complaint alleges sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss. First, the Courtidentifies the allegations in the complaint that are not “are not entitled to the presumptionof truth.” 129 S.Ct. at 679-680; see also
 
Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 970(9th Cir. 2009). “The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations containedin a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id. at 678. While this Court mustaccept reasonable inferences derived from well-pleaded facts, it need not accept“threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusorystatements,” or “legal conclusions couched as a factual allegation.” Id.; see also Moss, 572F.3d at 970.Then, the Court determines whether, based on only those well-pleaded, non-conclusory allegations, the complaint plausibly suggests the plaintiff’s entitlement to therelief sought.
See id 
at 679-680. Also, if a plaintiff fails to allege an essential element of his or her claim, the complaint does not sufficiently state a claim upon which relief may
!"#$%&'()*+,*-.()&*/0/%%%12+34$56%)(%%%789$:%-.;)<;()%%%=">$%&%2?%(@

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->