Filed: Jan. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior District Judge. Pending before the court in the above captioned case is Defendants' motion to dismiss, strike, and for a more definite statement, set to be heard on January 30, 2012. Defs' Mot., ECF No. 27. In support of Plaintiffs' opposition, Pls' Opp'n, ECF No. 29, Plaintiffs have filed a request for the court to file under seal "the Declaration of Benjamin Nisenbaum in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss EXHIBIT A: a t
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior District Judge. Pending before the court in the above captioned case is Defendants' motion to dismiss, strike, and for a more definite statement, set to be heard on January 30, 2012. Defs' Mot., ECF No. 27. In support of Plaintiffs' opposition, Pls' Opp'n, ECF No. 29, Plaintiffs have filed a request for the court to file under seal "the Declaration of Benjamin Nisenbaum in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss EXHIBIT A: a tr..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the court in the above captioned case is Defendants' motion to dismiss, strike, and for a more definite statement, set to be heard on January 30, 2012. Defs' Mot., ECF No. 27. In support of Plaintiffs' opposition, Pls' Opp'n, ECF No. 29, Plaintiffs have filed a request for the court to file under seal "the Declaration of Benjamin Nisenbaum in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss EXHIBIT A: a true and correct copy of the video footage of the subject-incident." Pls' Req., ECF No. 30, at 1-2.
In general, a district court may not consider material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Fort Vancouver Plywood Co. v. United States, 747 F.2d 547, 552 (9th Cir. 1984)). The court, therefore, declines to consider Plaintiffs' submitted video footage in ruling on this motion. The court will return the subject video to Plaintiffs' counsel.
Plaintiffs' request, ECF No. 30, is therefore DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
