SunPower Corporation v. Sunpower California, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SUNPOWER CORPORATION, Case No.: 21-CV-375-CAB-MSB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A 12 v. MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE 13 SUNPOWER CALIFORNIA, LLC; GREEN TECH SOLAR d/b/a Sunpower 14 California; and Benjamin Jackson, [Doc. No. 12] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Benjamin Jackson’s motion for a more 20 definite statement and motion to strike the complaint as to claims against him. The motion 21 has been fully briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral 22 argument. Upon review of the motion, the Court is unable to discern any cogent legal 23 argument for dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Jackson, which is the outcome Jackson 24 seeks notwithstanding the title of his motion. In any event, the Court finds that the 25 complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 26 that is plausible on its face’” against Jackson, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 27 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)), and that a more 28 definite statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the motion for a more definite statement | to strike the complaint is DENIED. Jackson shall file his answer to the complaint by 2 || May 6, 2021. 3 Itis SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: April 21, 2021 € Z 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28