|
|
SAGAN v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC.
874 F.Supp. 1072 (1994)
United States District Court, C.D. California.
June 27, 1994.
II. Motion to DismissA. Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) allows a party to move to dismiss a claim for failure to allege facts upon which relief can be granted. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion must not be granted "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); United States v. City of Redwood City,640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir.1981). The court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. NL Industries, Inc. v. Kaplan,792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir.1986); see also Russell v. Landrieu,621 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding that the complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). However, the court need not accept as true unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations. Western Min. Council v. Watt,643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1031, 102 S.Ct. 567, 70 L.Ed.2d 474 (1981); Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co.,402 F.2d 968, 973 (8th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 961,
89 S.Ct. 2096, 23 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969). Furthermore, unless the Court converts a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment, the court cannot consider material outside of the complaint (e.g., facts presented in briefs, affidavits, or discovery materials). Powe v. Chicago,664 F.2d 639, 642 (7th Cir.1981). B. Plaintiff's Sixth Claim for Libel Defendant argues that the statement "Butt-Head Astronomer" cannot be the basis of a libel action because such a statement is an opinion which is nonactionable under the First Amendment. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). Defendant also argues that such a statement is nonactionable under California law.
1. Sagan attempts to introduce a newspaper article containing the alleged defamatory statement. (Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit A.) However, this Court's analysis is limited to the four corners of the complaint. Nevertheless, consideration of the article would not help Sagan's position. Sagan asserts that the article implies facts which are capable of being proven false. If this is true, then Sagan's action lies against the publisher of the article, and not Defendant herein. 2. Although Milkovich limits Ault in other ways, it does not upset this portion of the Ault ruling. 3. This would explain the quotation marks Plaintiff places around the words "code name" in Paragraphs 11 and 12 — i.e., Plaintiff was simply quoting what he had been told. 4. See also Eastwood v. Superior Court,149 Cal.App.3d 409, 416, 198 Cal.Rptr. 342 (1983) (cause of action for common law commercial appropriation of right of publicity rested on appropriation branch of law of privacy).
|
|