Case 2:24-cv-01659-JFW-SSC Document 60 Filed 08/14/24 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:472
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. CV 24-1659-JFW(SSCx) Date: August 14, 2024
Title: Brian Beneker -v- CBS Studios, Inc., et al.
PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly None Present
Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING CBS STUDIOS INC. AND
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT [filed 6/24/24; Docket No. 48]
On June 24, 2024, Defendant CBS Studios Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Dismiss
Third Amended Complaint (“Motion”). On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff Brian Beneker (“Plaintiff”) filed his
Opposition. On July 29, 2024, Defendant filed a Reply. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision
without oral argument. The hearing calendared for August 19, 2024 is hereby vacated and the
matter taken off calendar. After considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers, and the
arguments therein, the Court rules as follows:
A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the
legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. “A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only
where there is either a ‘lack of a cognizable legal theory’ or ‘the absence of sufficient facts alleged
under a cognizable legal theory.’” Summit Technology, Inc. v. High-Line Medical Instruments Co.,
Inc., 922 F. Supp. 299, 304 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988)). However, “[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of
his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (internal citations and alterations omitted). “[F]actual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.
In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint
and must construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See, e.g.,
Wyler Summit Partnership v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998).
Page 1 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
Case 2:24-cv-01659-JFW-SSC Document 60 Filed 08/14/24 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:473
“However, a court need not accept as true unreasonable inferences, unwarranted deductions of
fact, or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations.” Summit Technology,
922 F. Supp. at 304 (citing Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981) cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 1031 (1981)).
“Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19
(9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). However, a court may consider material which is properly
submitted as part of the complaint and matters which may be judicially noticed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Evidence 201 without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary
judgment. See, e.g., id.; Branch v. Tunnel, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994).
Where a motion to dismiss is granted, a district court must decide whether to grant leave to
amend. Generally, the Ninth Circuit has a liberal policy favoring amendments and, thus, leave to
amend should be freely granted. See, e.g., DeSoto v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 957 F.2d 655,
658 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a Court does not need to grant leave to amend in cases where the
Court determines that permitting a plaintiff to amend would be an exercise in futility. See, e.g.,
Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Denial of leave to
amend is not an abuse of discretion where the pleadings before the court demonstrate that further
amendment would be futile.”).
The Court concludes that the issues raised by Defendant are more appropriately resolved
on a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Gina Carano v. The Walt Disney Company, et al.,
Case No. 24-CV-1009-SPG (Skx), Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (C.D. Cal. July
24, 2024) (ECF Docket No. 45). Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 2 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
