COMES NOW, PLAINTIFF Jackie Valenzuela, by and through her attorneys of record, and hereby submit the following Points and Authorities in support of their Opposition to Defendants’ Gio Giovanni, and Fedex Corporation, Fedex Ground Package System, Fedex Corporate Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant" or "FedEx") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the following grounds: failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for, negligence, vicarious liability, and punitive damages.
All of these arguments lack support and should be immediately rejected. In respect to Defendant's …show more content…
Plaintiff is not required to overemphasize all aspect of Plaintiff's negligence claim. Plaintiff's compliant sufficiently sets for a short and plain statement of the claim as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Litigants are generally required to satisfy only "notice" pleading obligations by providing their opponent with fair notice of their claim and the grounds upon which that claim rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007).
Plaintiff has defined the Defendant’s duty owed to Plaintiff, and the corresponding breach, by alleging Plaintiff's claims arising under California Civil Code of Procedure § 1714, California Vehicle Code §12500 et seq, California Vehicle Code §14606 et seq., govern under 49 CRF §384.400 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. §31305 (collectively referred to as "Codes”). Specifically, Plaintiff has properly pled this claim because Defendant's actions constitute negligence per …show more content…
The duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiff is provided by Congress and the California Legislature in the form of the California Civil Code of Procedure § 1714, California Vehicle Code §12500 et seq, California Vehicle Code §14606 et seq., govern under 49 CRF §384.400 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. §31305 respectively. Defendant systematically violated all above mentioned
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the following grounds: failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for, negligence, vicarious liability, and punitive damages.
All of these arguments lack support and should be immediately rejected. In respect to Defendant's …show more content…
Plaintiff is not required to overemphasize all aspect of Plaintiff's negligence claim. Plaintiff's compliant sufficiently sets for a short and plain statement of the claim as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Litigants are generally required to satisfy only "notice" pleading obligations by providing their opponent with fair notice of their claim and the grounds upon which that claim rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007).
Plaintiff has defined the Defendant’s duty owed to Plaintiff, and the corresponding breach, by alleging Plaintiff's claims arising under California Civil Code of Procedure § 1714, California Vehicle Code §12500 et seq, California Vehicle Code §14606 et seq., govern under 49 CRF §384.400 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. §31305 (collectively referred to as "Codes”). Specifically, Plaintiff has properly pled this claim because Defendant's actions constitute negligence per …show more content…
The duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiff is provided by Congress and the California Legislature in the form of the California Civil Code of Procedure § 1714, California Vehicle Code §12500 et seq, California Vehicle Code §14606 et seq., govern under 49 CRF §384.400 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. §31305 respectively. Defendant systematically violated all above mentioned