Latham v. Acton et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
BEN LATHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANCHORAGE MUNICIPALITY
PEOPLE MOVER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00258-SLG
ORDER
At Docket 31, Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Latham has
responded with a Motion to Compel Discovery Prior to Filing a Reply to Motion to
Dismiss and a Motion for an Extension of Time at Dockets 32 and 34, respectively.
Defendants filed a non-opposition to the Motion for an Extension of Time.1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) allows defendants to raise initial
defenses to a complaint, such as lack of jurisdiction, insufficient service, or failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2 A motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal
sufficiency of the claims in the complaint. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
1 Docket 36.
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).
Case 3:19-cv-00258-SLG Document 38 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:19-cv-00258-SLG, Latham v. Acton, et al.
Order
Page 2 of 3
to relief that is plausible on its face.’”3 A claim is plausible on its face “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”4 Thus, there
must be “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”5
When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court considers only the complaint
and those documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, as well as
matters on which a court may take judicial notice.6 A court “accept[s] factual
allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.”7 Here, Defendants have not attached any
additional materials outside of the pleadings to their motion to dismiss.8 Therefore,
there is no need for Mr. Latham to have any discovery provided to him in order for
him to respond to Defendants’ motion. The Court will determine the motion based
solely on the parties’ legal arguments and based on its review of Mr. Latham’s First
Amended Complaint at Docket 25.
3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
4 Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
5 Id.
6 Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008)
(citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)).
7 Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).
8 It is for that reason that the Court has caused to be withdrawn the Notice that the
Clerk’s Office issued at Docket 37.
Case 3:19-cv-00258-SLG Document 38 Filed 03/05/20 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:19-cv-00258-SLG, Latham v. Acton, et al.
Order
Page 3 of 3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, the Motion to Compel Discovery Prior to
Filing a Reply to Motion to Dismiss at Docket 32 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for good cause appearing, the Motion for
an Extension of Time at Docket 34 is GRANTED. Mr. Latham has 30 days from
the date of this order to file his response to the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim.
DATED this 5th day of March, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:19-cv-00258-SLG Document 38 Filed 03/05/20 Page 3 of 3