Danielle Victor v. Southwest Wine & Spirits, LLC, et al.

Victor v. Southwest Wine & Spirits · United States District Court for the Central District of California · July 14, 2025 · No. 2:23-cv-00690-MEMF-PDx

Summary

The court issued an order to show cause why Plaintiff Danielle Victor’s 239-page First Amended Complaint should not be dismissed. The court identified deficiencies under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 20, concluded that the asserted criminal-statute claims were not cognizable civil claims, and determined that claims challenging state-court proceedings appeared barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiff was ordered either to file a compliant second amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the action by August 11, 2025.

Holdings

  1. The First Amended Complaint appeared subject to dismissal because it did not provide a short and plain statement identifying the claims asserted against each defendant, the factual conduct attributed to each defendant, the legal theories involved, and the relief sought.
  2. The First Amended Complaint appeared to improperly join the 32 defendants because Plaintiff did not allege claims against each defendant arising from the same transaction or occurrence and presenting a common question of law or fact.
  3. The First Amended Complaint appeared barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to the extent it challenged state-court rulings or sought relief from injuries caused by those rulings.
  4. Plaintiff lacked standing to bring federal or state criminal-law claims, and the cited criminal statutes did not provide a basis for civil liability or enforceable individual rights.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the First Amended Complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it did not clearly identify the claims, defendants, factual bases, and requested relief.
  2. Whether the First Amended Complaint improperly joined 32 defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.
  3. Whether the claims challenging or arising from prior state-court litigation were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
  4. Whether Plaintiff could assert civil claims based on alleged violations of federal and California criminal statutes.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (31)

  • Bailey v. Clarke, 2012 WL 6720628, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2012)(followed)
  • Stupy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 951 F.2d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980)(followed)
  • Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Gilreath v. Bach, No. EDCV 17-0694, 2017 WL 5593017, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017)(followed)
  • Reed v. East End Props., Inc., No. ED CV 17-955-DMG (KKx), 2018 WL 6131211 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018)(followed)
  • Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Sohal v. City of Merced Police Dep’t, 2009 WL 961465, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2009)(followed)
  • Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)(followed)
  • Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 31.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…