Opinion
Case No. 2:04CV360 DAK.
December 10, 2004
ORDER
The City Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Elaine Totten's Motion for More Definite Statement came before the court for hearing on October 4, 2004. Plaintiffs were represented by Robert R. Wallace and David R. Maddox. The City Defendants were represented by Steven W. Allred. Defendant Elaine Totten was represented by Peter L. Rognlie and Peggy Stone. The court carefully reviewed and considered the parties' memoranda and oral argument. The court issued its ruling from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing. That ruling is reflected in this Order due to the parties' inability to agree to an Order reflecting the court's ruling.
Plaintiffs stipulated during oral argument that they are not seeking to impose liability upon West Jordan City based upon respondeat superior. Defendants' motion to dismiss West Jordan City from liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is denied without prejudice. Defendants may file another motion to dismiss this claim after Plaintiffs have had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery into the existence of any relevant City customs, policies, and practices.
Plaintiffs also stipulated during oral argument that none of their claims are state-based. Thus, to the extent any of Plaintiffs' claims could be construed as alleging state causes of action, those claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Further, all claims against the individual City Defendants in their official capacity are dismissed with prejudice, as official capacity suits represent merely another way of pleading an action against an entity. Thus, naming the individual Defendants in their official capacity is redundant and provides Plaintiffs with no further relief than their suit against the City provides.
As stated at the hearing and as reflected in the minute entry, Defendant Totten's Motion for a More Definite Statement is granted. Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint to describe the claims against Defendant Totten in more detail. The City Defendants are not required to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint because nothing regarding the City will be included in the amendment. Counsel's request — made during oral argument — that the claims against Defendant Totten be dismissed is denied.
CONCLUSION
The City Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [docket # 17] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant Totten's Motion for a More Definite Statement is [docket #9] GRANTED. Plaintiffs have fifteen days to file an Amended Complaint. All parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees.