2008-10-01_Jack_Thomas_v_COH_-_Order_Granting_Defendants_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_and_Remanding_State_Law_Claims

Home

Case 1:07-cv-00251-JMS-LEK Document 52 Filed 10/01/2008 Page 9 of 17 on the criminal charge. Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot add new causes of action at this time because the date for motions to amend pleadings passed over nine months ago (January 11, 2008), and Plaintiff was aware of these potential causes of action at the time he filed the Complaint. The court declines to consider new allegations raised for the first time in Plaintiff's Opposition. See Pickern v. Pier I Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that the district court did not err in holding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations). Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that allegations in the Complaint "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (quotation omitted), but Plaintiff's new allegations go well beyond those in the Complaint. The Complaint outlines Defendants' alleged notice that the TRO had been dismissed against Plaintiff and Defendants' decision to go forward. The Complaint does not, however, provide any notice that Plaintiff believed his rights to privacy were violated. Further, at the hearing, Plaintiff admitted that his Complaint did not include this allegation and that he had not sought to amend the Complaint. 9