Kofoed v. Edison Pension Trust et al, No. 3:2009cv01104 - Document 23 (D. Or. 2009)
Court Description: Opinion and Order - The Motino to Dismiss of Defendants Hannah Sutton and William Earhart Co, Inc. 5 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 16 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause Why This Action Should not be Dismissed 17 is DENIED. Signed on 12/17/2009 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION JOSEPH W. KOFOED, Civil Case No. 09-1104-KI Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER vs. EDISON PENSION TRUST, HANNAH SUTTON c/o WILLIAM C. EARHART CO., INC., Defendants. Joseph W. Kofoed 6005 N. Minnesota Avenue Portland, Oregon 97217 Pro Se Plaintiff Stephen H. Buckley Paul G. Dodds Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Brownstein, Rask, Sweeney, Kerr, Grim, Desylvia & Hay, LLP 1200 SW Main Street Portland, Oregon 97205-2040 Attorneys for Defendants Hannah Sutton and William C. Earhart Co., Inc. KING, Judge: Pro se plaintiff Joseph W. Kofoed filed this action seeking to back date his disability pension retirement to 20 months prior to August 1, 2000. Several motions are currently pending. DISCUSSION Defendants Hannah Sutton and William C. Earhart Co., Inc. ask the court to dismiss the Complaint against them for failure to state a claim. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted if plaintiff fails to allege the grounds of his entitlement to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) The Complaint, which is a single page in length, contains no allegations against these two defendants. These two defendants have not filed an answer and may raise this issue in a motion. Because there are literally no allegations against Hannah Sutton and the William C. Earhart Co., I dismiss them from the Complaint. In addition to responding to defendants motion to dismiss, plaintiff moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint includes Hannah Sutton and the William C. Earhart Co., as well as Edison Pension Trust, as defendants and states a few rather sketchy allegations concerning them. I will allow the First Amended Complaint. Defendants may move against it if they wish but I suggest that they concentrate on moving this Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER case along to the stage where a summary judgment motion can resolve all issues, including whether any relief can be sought from these two defendants. I deny plaintiff s request for reassignment to a magistrate judge. I do not routinely reassign my civil cases to magistrate judges. CONCLUSION The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Hannah Sutton and William C. Earhart Co., Inc. (#5) is granted. Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (#16) is granted. Plaintiff s Motion to Show why this Action Should not be Dismissed (#17) is denied. This motions is actually a second memorandum in response to the motion to dismiss. I assure plaintiff that I reviewed and considered his arguments discussed in the document. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 17th day of December, 2009. /s/ Garr M. King Garr M. King United States District Judge Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
