PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 41] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by defendants Colonel David Grosso, Sergeant Major Mark Cook, Colonel John Irgens, Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson, and Colonel Joel Hamilton. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to rescind an order of the commander of Fort Carson barring plaintiffs from the military installation.
In 2008, plaintiffs Robert Alvarez and Georg-Andreas Pogány began providing pro bono investigative and advocacy services to U.S. Army service members facing administrative and judicial proceedings at the U.S. Army installation at Fort Carson, which is located in El Paso County, Colorado. Docket No. 36 at 3, ¶ 10. Plaintiffs' services included providing case analysis, seeking correction of health care records and/or additional medical evaluations, communicating with clients' superiors, investigating allegations underlying improper conduct discharges, and providing trial support services. Id. at 3-4, ¶ 10. The majority of plaintiffs' clients suffer from mental illness precipitated by service-related traumatic brain injury ("TBI") and/or post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). Id. at 4, ¶ 11. Plaintiffs work together and sometimes with attorneys representing service members. Id. at 5, ¶ 12. The nature of plaintiffs' advocacy work requires base access, including an opportunity to interview military personnel, see id. at 5-6, ¶¶ 14-15, and attend courts martial and administrative hearings, which were held on Fort Carson. Id. at 5, ¶ 14. In providing their pro bono services, plaintiffs conducted themselves professionally and with respect for military order and discipline. Id. at 6, ¶ 16. When plaintiffs were unable to resolve disagreements with Fort Carson command staff regarding their clients, plaintiffs reported such disagreements to the Office of the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army, to the Vice-Chief of the U.S. Army, and to senators and congressional representatives. Id. at 7, ¶ 19. Plaintiffs also requested Army Regulation 15-6 investigations of Fort Carson physicians and commanders for interference in plaintiffs' clients' medical evaluations and separation proceedings. Id.
Col. Grosso, Col. Irgens, Sgt. Cook, and Lt. Gen. Anderson were all part of Fort Carson's command staff in 2012. Id. at 1-2, ¶¶ 2-3. Col. Grosso was the Garrison Commander of Fort Carson in 2012. Id. at 6, ¶ 16.
In March and April 2012, plaintiffs communicated with defendants regarding the discharge of Spc. Nesbett, one of plaintiffs' clients. Docket No. 36 at 8, ¶¶ 20-21. Plaintiffs asked Lt. Gen. Anderson to suspend separation activity on Spc. Nesbett's case. Id. Sgt. Cook responded on Lt. Gen. Anderson's behalf, asserting that discharge proceedings were proper. Id. Plaintiffs then advised Lt. Gen. Anderson that they would take their concerns to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee. Id. Lt. Gen. Anderson suspended separation proceedings for Spc. Nesbett. Id.
Plaintiffs continued their work through the summer and fall of 2012. During that time, plaintiffs represented Spc. Bettencourt, a soldier facing adverse discharge as a result of misconduct. Docket No. 36 at 10, ¶ 24. Plaintiffs believed that such misconduct was caused by a service-related injury and contacted the Tiger Team, requesting that the defendants suspend the discharge proceedings and process Spc. Bettencourt for medical disposition. Id. Although defendants temporarily suspended discharge proceedings, on October 23, 2012, those proceedings resumed. Id. at 10, ¶ 25. However, Col. Irgens advised plaintiffs that the Tiger Team would continue to receive their input, stating
Id.
On October 27, 2012, plaintiffs asked Lt. Gen. Anderson to suspend Spc. Bettencourt's discharge. Id. at 11, ¶ 26. On October 30, 2012, Sgt. Cook invited plaintiffs "to present issues that you would like the Tiger Team to look into" at a Tiger Team meeting on November 1, 2012. Id. at 12, ¶ 29. On October 31, 2012, plaintiffs emailed Lt. Gen. Anderson, expressing concern that Lt. Gen. Anderson's subordinates were violating Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including "wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding," and notifying Lt. Gen. Anderson that they intended to approach the Armed Services Committee to seek intervention on behalf of Spc. Bettencourt. Id. at 11, ¶ 27. On October 31, 2012, Mr. Alvarez accompanied Spc. Bettencourt through his out-processing from Fort Carson. Id. at 12, ¶ 28. Mr. Pogany was not physically present. Id. Midway through the out-processing, the proceeding was halted because of a telephone call from Spc. Bettencourt's physician, who ordered Spc. Bettencourt's discharge halted for further medical evaluation. Id.
On November 5, 2012, Col. Grosso issued a debarment order (the "debarment order") preventing plaintiffs from entering Fort Carson. Id. at 12, ¶ 30. Col. Grosso notified plaintiffs of the decision via a letter, which stated, "I have determined that your presence is disruptive to the good order and discipline of the Fort Carson installation. You are hereby ordered not to reenter or be found within the limits of Fort Carson, Colorado." See Docket No. 41-1; Docket No. 41-2.
On May 12, 2014, plaintiffs filed this case against defendants in their individual and official capacities. Docket No. 1. On September 22, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims for First Amendment retaliation, violation of due process, and violation of First Amendment right of access to courts. Id. at 15, 17, 19. On October 7, 2014, the Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against defendants in their individual capacities. Docket No. 40 at 1. Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief vacating the debarment order. Docket No. 36 at 21, ¶ 57.
The Court's function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the plaintiff's complaint alone is sufficient to plausibly state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2003). In doing so, the Court "must accept all the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and must construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Alvarado v. KOB-TV, LLC, 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted). At the same time, however, a court need not accept conclusory allegations. Moffett v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 291 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir. 2002).
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege enough factual matter that, taken as true, makes the plaintiff's "claim to relief . . . plausible on its face." Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not shown-that the pleader is entitled to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration marks omitted); see also Khalik, 671 F.3d at 1190 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570) ("A plaintiff must nudge [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss."). If a complaint's allegations are "so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent," then plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim. Khalik, 671 F.3d at 1191 (quotations omitted). Thus, even though modern rules of pleading are somewhat forgiving, "a complaint still must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Bryson v. Gonzales, 534 F.3d 1282, 1286 (10th Cir. 2008) (alteration marks omitted).
A key to the resolution of defendants' motion is the location on which plaintiffs' alleged activities principally occurred — a military base. It is also important to keep in mind what action of defendants plaintiffs challenge — an order barring them from Fort Carson — and what relief plaintiffs seek — rescission of the debarment order.
Base commanders have considerable discretion to exclude civilians from military bases. In fact, the Supreme Court has noted the "historically unquestioned power of a commanding officer summarily to exclude civilians from the area of his command." Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473, AFL-CI0 v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 893 (1961); see also United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 690 (1985); Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 838 (1976); United States v. Gourley, 502 F.2d 785, 786-87 (10th Cir. 1973) ("[It is] well recognized that the commander of a military installation has and must have the broad authority and discretion to summarily exclude persons therefrom."). Such power comes principally from the Constitution, which grants Congress "plenary authority . . . `To raise and support Armies'; `To provide and maintain a Navy'; and `To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.'" Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 301 (1983) (citing U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cls. 12-14); see also Cafeteria Workers, 367 U.S. 890 ("The control of access to a military base is clearly within the constitutional powers granted to both Congress and the President"). "`Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to intervene in judicial matters." Chappell, 462 U.S. at 301. As a result, in cases arising in the context of Congress' authority over national defense and military affairs, "perhaps in no other area has the Court accorded Congress greater deference." See Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 64-65 (1981); see also Albertini, 472 U.S. at 689. The Supreme Court has, however, suggested that civilians may not be excluded from a military base "if the announced grounds for . . . exclusion [are] patently arbitrary or discriminatory." See Cafeteria Workers, 367 U.S. at 898.
Although invoking different constitutional rights, each of plaintiffs' claims seeks the same thing: an opportunity to challenge defendants' stated reasons for issuing the debarment order.
Plaintiffs argue that, by issuing the debarment order, defendants violated plaintiffs' procedural and substantive due process rights. See Docket No. 36 at 17-18, ¶¶ 42-46.
Ordinarily, courts "examine procedural due process questions in two steps: the first asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the [government]; the second examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient." Kentucky Dep't of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989) (internal citations omitted); see also Ward v. Anderson, 494 F.3d 929, 934 (10th Cir. 2007). Defendants argue that plaintiffs have not established either prong, Docket No. 41 at 13, and plaintiffs do not directly respond. The Court agrees with defendants.
As to the first prong, plaintiffs do not identify any "statute, regulation, or contract" that establishes their entitlement to continued admission to Fort Carson, see Serrano Medina v. United States, 709 F.2d 104, 108 (1st Cir. 1983), or identify any recognized basis for overriding a base commander's "broad authority and discretion to summarily exclude persons" from military installations. See Gourley, 502 F.2d at 786. In light of Cafeteria Workers and its progeny, the Court finds no basis for concluding that plaintiffs have established a property or liberty interest which the debarment order interferes with.
As to the second prong, where, as here, a private interest can be characterized "as a mere privilege subject to the Executive's plenary power, it has traditionally been held that notice and hearing are not constitutionally required." Cafeteria Workers, 367 U.S. at 895. Courts interpreting Cafeteria Workers generally conclude that a commanding officer does not violate a civilian's due process rights by summarily excluding him or her from a military base without notice and a hearing. See Serrano Medina, 709 F.2d at 108 (collecting cases). The Court therefore rejects plaintiffs' claim that they were entitled to "notice and the opportunity to be heard" before being excluded from Fort Carson. See Docket No. 36 at 18, ¶ 45.
Plaintiffs' argument in support of their due process claims is that the debarment order was "patently arbitrary . . . as retaliation for Plaintiffs' advocacy and reporting of misconduct in the disposition of wounded soldiers' medical and legal cases." Docket No. 44 at 13. The Supreme Court has stated, in dicta:
Cafeteria Workers, 367 U.S. at 898. Courts have interpreted this language as placing a limit on a base commander's otherwise unfettered discretion to exclude civilians from military installations. See Berry v. Bean, 796 F.2d 713, 717 (4th Cir. 1986); see also Tokar v. Hearne, 699 F.2d 753, 757 (5th Cir. 1983). Some courts, however, have grappled with the question of how such a limitation should be applied, including whether a plaintiff invoking this limitation is entitled to challenge the factual basis for a base commander's stated reasons for exclusion. See Berry, 796 F.2d at 717; Serrano Medina, 709 F.2d at 109. The court in Serrano Medina, in considering this issue, looked to the Supreme Court's language in Cafeteria Workers:
Id. (citations and quotations omitted, emphasis in original) (quoting Cafeteria Workers). see also Berry, 769 F.2d at 717 (finding considerable support for the view that a court reviewing a commander's bar order "may consider only whether it states facially valid reasons for exclusion, with no scrutiny of the factual basis for the exclusion"); Garrison v. United States, 688 F.Supp. 1469, 1475 (D. Nev. 1988) (deciding on motion to dismiss that "bar order issued to Garrison was based on legitimate grounds, in keeping with the broad discretion granted the base commander" (citing Serrano Medina)).
In Weissman v. United States, 387 F.2d 271, 272-73 (10th Cir. 1967), the base commander at Fort Sill in Oklahoma received reports that defendants were verbally disrupting a court-martial proceeding. The commander issued a bar order, preventing defendants from reentering Fort Sill. Id. Shortly thereafter, defendants were found on the base and were charged with and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1382. Id. On appeal, defendants challenged the bar order, arguing that the government showed no valid reason for its promulgation. The Tenth Circuit disagreed. The commander, General Brown, testified that he issued the bar order on the basis of reports of defendants' behavior and because he considered the conduct of the defendants "prejudicial to good order and discipline, and the accomplishment of my mission." Id. at 274. On the basis of the commander's stated reasons for issuing the bar order, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the order was reasonable. Moreover, the court added that, "[e]ven if we did not so believe, the order was within the discretionary power of the commandant and not reviewable by the courts." Id. Defendants also argued that they were entitled to production of the written reports relevant to the commander's testimony, but the Tenth Circuit disagreed, holding, "[a]s a matter of law there may be no challenge to the General's statement of the reason for the bar order." Id.; see also United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 1980) (noting that scope of review in challenge to bar order "extremely limited").
Some courts appear willing to examine the factual predicate of a base commander's stated reasons. See, e.g., Tokar v. Hearne, 699 F.2d 753, 757 (5th Cir. 1983) (upholding bar order after district court bench trial, concluding "there was ample evidence to support Colonel Hearne's actions"); Serrano Medina, 709 F.2d at 109-10 (collecting cases). Nonetheless, the Court is persuaded by the reasoning of Weissman and Serrano Medina. Such reasoning is consistent with Cafeteria Workers and the deference courts traditionally afford base commanders to manage a military installation. As the First Circuit has pointed out, to conclude otherwise and "delve into the truth or falsity of the facts behind the exclusion would be to require the very hearing that appellant has been found not entitled to." See Serrano Medina, 709 F.2d at 109.
Here, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim that defendants' stated reasons for issuing the debarment order are patently arbitrary or discriminatory. In the November 5, 2012 letters to plaintiffs, Col. Grosso states "I have determined that your presence is disruptive to the good order and discipline of the Fort Carson installation." See Docket No. 41-1 at 1. Courts have upheld bar orders issued under similar reasoning, see, e.g., Weissman, 387 F.2d at 274, and such reasoning appears to fall well within Col. Grosso's discretion to summarily exclude civilians from a military installation. See Gourley, 502 F.2d at 786-87. The Court therefore finds that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim that the debarment order was patently arbitrary or discriminatory.
Although it is far from clear that defendants were required to state additional reasons for excluding plaintiffs from Fort Carson, defendants nevertheless did so. Plaintiffs' complaint states that, after plaintiffs challenged the debarment order with "higher authorities," defendants offered specific reasons for the debarment order, including that Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Pogany physically interfered with the out-processing of SPC Bettencourt and told "a solider to `drool' and otherwise falsify symptoms of mental illness in order to justify medical disposition and evade bad conduct discharge proceedings." Docket No. 36 at 13-14, ¶ 34. Plaintiffs adamantly deny these accusations, id., but the Court's review is not concerned with whether there is sufficient factual support for defendants' stated reasons. See Garrison, 688 F. Supp. at 1475 (assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff was correct that bar order was issued without sufficient factual investigation, "the factual basis behind the commander's allegations is not subject to judicial scrutiny"); see also Serrano Medina, 709 F.2d at 109; Weissman, 387 F.2d at 274. Plaintiffs further assert that defendants' post-hoc articulation of additional grounds for the debarment order renders such grounds inherently suspect. Id. It is not clear, as noted above, that plaintiffs were entitled to additional explanation of the grounds for the bar order. Moreover, the Court finds nothing patently arbitrary or discriminatory about defendants' more specific reasons for excluding plaintiffs from Fort Carson. Col. Grosso undoubtedly has an interest in assuring that civilians are not physically interfering with the out-processing of a service member from the base. The other reason that plaintiffs cite in the complaint is that plaintiffs were coaching a witness to falsify symptoms of mental illness to gain an advantage in discharge proceedings. Plaintiffs do not dispute that, if true, this would constitute serious misconduct. Col. Grosso's decision to exclude plaintiffs for those reasons is facially rational, and plaintiffs do not otherwise identify a sufficient basis for the Court to interfere in what is a facially legitimate exercise of discretion. See Albertini, 472 U.S. at 689 (noting that analysis of bar order "does not turn on a judge's agreement with the responsible decisionmaker concerning the most appropriate method for promoting significant government interests"); Chappell, 462 U.S. at 301.
This reasoning applies with equal force to plaintiffs' substantive due process claim. The substantive due process doctrine has two strands: "One strand protects an individual's fundamental liberty interests, while the other protects against the exercise of governmental power that shocks the conscience." Seegmiller v. LaVerkin City, 528 F.3d 762, 767 (10th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs' allegations arise out of the latter strand. See Docket No. 44 at 12. To constitute conscience shocking behavior, the government action must be "arbitrary and unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice." Seegmiller, 528 F.3d at 767 (quotation marks and citations omitted). The Supreme Court has made clear that "only the most egregious official conduct can be said to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense." Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998). In light of commanding officers' broad discretion to summarily exclude civilians from a military base and the grounds identified as the reasons for the debarment order here, defendants' issuance of the debarment order falls well short of conscience shocking behavior. See Albertini, 472 U.S. at 690; Serrano Medina, 709 F.2d at 109.
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the debarment order violates their First Amendment rights to "freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom from retaliation for protected conduct." Docket No. 36 at 16, ¶ 40. Plaintiffs, however, appear to have abandoned their freedom of speech and association theories, proceeding exclusively on a retaliation theory. Docket No. 44 at 9-10. Plaintiffs contend that this case "should be analyzed by answering whether a commander's discretion to exclude civilians covers debarments ordered as retaliation for protected conduct." Id. at 2.
To bring a First Amendment retaliation claim outside the employment context, a plaintiff must establish three elements:
Leverington v. City of Colo. Springs, 643 F.3d 719, 729 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted). As to the first element, plaintiffs allege that they engaged in a variety of protected activity, including engaging in advocacy work on Fort Carson, communicating with defendants regarding soldiers' separation proceedings, and communicating with the Office of the Surgeon General and Inspector General of the United States Army as well as senators and congressmen regarding investigative findings. Docket No. 36 at 16, ¶ 39; see also id. at 7, ¶ 19. Plaintiffs appear to take the position that such conduct is constitutionally protected petitioning activity. Docket No. 44 at 10; see also Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 2007) ("a private citizen exercises a constitutionally protected First Amendment right anytime he or she petitions the government for redress" (emphasis in original)). However, by abandoning their freedom of speech and association theories, plaintiffs all but concede that they have no absolute First Amendment right to engage in speech within the confines of Fort Carson. See Greer, 424 U.S. at 836 ("the First Amendment [has] never meant that people who want to propagandize protests or views have a constitutional right to do so whenever and however and wherever they please"). In fact, plaintiffs do not explicitly challenge defendants' argument that plaintiffs have not alleged any facts entitling them to engage in First Amendment activity within Fort Carson. Docket No. 41 at 10.
Plaintiffs' position on this issue is problematic to the success of their claim, given that they seek an order from this Court restoring their ability to enter Fort Carson. By conceding that they have no First Amendment right to engage in speech within Fort Carson, the only conduct giving rise to this claim would appear to be petitioning activity that took place in the form of phone calls, letters, or emails outside Fort Carson.
Although styled differently, plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claim and due process claims seek to rescind the debarment order by the same means, namely, through a challenge to the factual sufficiency of Col. Grosso's stated reasons for issuing the debarment order. The Supreme Court has reiterated that a commanding officer's power to exclude civilians from a military base is not subject to the same analysis as government regulation over other spaces, whether the challenge to that power is asserted under the First Amendment, see, e.g., Albertini, 472 U.S. at 688, or the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Cafeteria Workers, 367 U.S. at 895. If a base commander's authority to exclude civilians prohibits a court from "delv[ing] into the truth or falsity of the facts behind the exclusion" when reviewing a due process claim, see Serrano Medina, 709 F.2d at 109,
As a result, the Court limits its analysis of plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claim to determining whether defendants' stated reasons for excluding plaintiffs from Fort Carson are patently arbitrary, discriminatory, or retaliatory. Col. Grosso's initial stated reason for excluding plaintiffs does not patently implicate plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, compare Docket Nos. 41-1 and 41-2, with Kiiskila, 433 F.2d at 747, and appears to fall well within his authority as commander of Fort Carson. See Weissman, 387 F.2d at 274. Moreover, defendants' subsequently stated reasons for the debarment order are related to plaintiffs' interference with activities taking place within Fort Carson and do not patently implicate plaintiffs' alleged protected petitioning activity. See Docket No. 36 at 14, ¶ 34. For the reasons discussed above, the Court will not inquire into the truth or falsity of these reasons. See Weissman, 387 F.2d at 274. Because these reasons are not arbitrary, discriminatory, or retaliatory, defendants' motion to dismiss as to plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim will be granted.
Plaintiffs claim that the debarment order violates their First Amendment right of access to military courts martial held within the boundaries of Fort Carson. Docket No. 44 at 13-14.
First, plaintiffs argue that they have a right to assist counsel and testify at courts martial and administrative hearings on behalf of their clients. Id. at 14. Plaintiffs do not, however, identify any authority in support of their claim that non-attorneys have a right to "assist" in courts martial and no such authority is apparent to the Court. Moreover, plaintiffs are not attorneys, they work on a "pro bono" basis, and they are not themselves a party to any court proceedings taking place on Fort Carson. Thus, any injury caused by their inability to assist in courts martial would be suffered by plaintiffs' clients, not plaintiffs. Plaintiffs therefore fail to establish that they have standing to bring such a claim. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) (setting forth requirements of constitutional standing).
Second, plaintiffs argue that, because courts martial are open to the public, they have a right to attend courts martial in person. Docket No. 44 at 14-15. The Supreme Court has expressly rejected such logic. See Albertini, 472 U.S. at 687 (holding that "valid bar letter distinguished [an individual] from the general public and provided a reasonable grounds for excluding him from the base," which "did not become less weighty when other persons were allowed to enter"); Greer, 424 U.S. at 838 n.10 ("The fact that other civilian speakers and entertainers had sometimes been invited to appear at Fort Dix did not of itself serve to convert Fort Dix into a public forum or to confer upon political candidates a First or Fifth Amendment right to conduct their campaigns there."). Moreover, in United States v. McVeigh, 106 F.3d 325, 336 (10th Cir. 1997), the Tenth Circuit held that, although the Supreme Court has recognized a "public trial-access right," there exists no individual right to attend a particular proceeding:
Id. at 335. The Court will therefore grant defendants' motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs' third claim for relief.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
