G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are Defendants Arthur Anderson and Edward O Burke's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18), Defendant Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19), and Defendants Dennis I. Wilenchik, Thomas E. Lordan, Rob Somers, Carole Downs, and Shannon Downs' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20). Also pending are Plaintiff's Motions to Strike Anderson and Burke's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) and Motion to Strike Defendants Wilenchik, Lordan, Somers, Downs, and Downs' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24). For the following reasons, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are granted and Plaintiff's Motions to Strike are denied.
This case arises from an action alleging trade secret violations brought against Plaintiff by Smartcomm License Services, L.L.C., and Smartcomm, L.L.C. in Maricopa County Superior Court (the "underlying action"). Smartcomm filed the underlying action against Maerki on November 15, 2010 and the action, CV 2010-032209, is ongoing at the time of this Order. Maerki asserts that in the course of litigating the underlying action, Defendants conspired to deprive him of a variety of constitutional rights. He brings the present action against Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Arthur Anderson, the judge in the underlying case, Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Edward O. Burke, the Special Master appointed in the underlying action, Dennis I. Wilenchik, Thomas E. Lordan, and Rob Somers, three attorneys for the Plaintiff companies in the underlying action, and Carole Downs and Shannon Downs, two Smartcomm employees. (Doc. 4 ("Amended Complaint").) Plaintiff claims that Defendants have conspired to deprive him of due process in the underlying action by pursuing improper discovery, limiting his ability to speak, and arresting him pursuant to a contempt order. Plaintiff asserts a variety of constitutional claims against defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These claims include alleged violations of Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff seeks damages. Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Docs. 18, 19, 20.) In response, Plaintiff moves to strike two of these Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 23, 24.)
I. Legal Standard
Rule 12(b)(6) is designed to "test the legal sufficiency of a claim." Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain more than "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action"; it must contain factual allegations sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While "a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations... it must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Plausibility requires "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Accordingly, a plaintiff must do more than employ "labels, " "conclusions, " or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Id.
When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), "[a]ll allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1996). However, legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not given a presumption of truthfulness, and "conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss." Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998).
II. Defendants Anderson and Burke
Defendants Maricopa Superior Court Judge Arthur Anderson and Edward O. Burke, appointed as a special master in the underlying action, move to dismiss all claims against them on the grounds of absolute judicial immunity or due to the failure to state a claim. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Anderson and Burke engaged in assorted misconduct in their roles as Judge and special master in the underlying action. Plaintiff's allegations against Anderson solely concern acts that are clearly judicial in nature. These allegations appear to include that Judge Anderson made rulings during the underlying action that Plaintiff found to be improper, that he appointed a criminal defense attorney for Plaintiff during the course of that action without Plaintiff's permission, and that Anderson permitted discovery that Plaintiff argues violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 4 at 7-8.) These are all acts normally performed by a judge and occurred when Judge Anderson acted in his judicial capacity. As such, the allegations against Anderson involve judicial action and are barred by absolute judicial immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). Such immunity applies even in the event that a judge is accused of acting maliciously or corruptly. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967).
Plaintiff further alleges that, in his capacity as special master, Burke persuaded Judge Anderson to sign the Show Cause Order before Anderson had the opportunity for thorough review, thus leading to Anderson's allegedly improper ruling regarding that order. (Doc. 4 at 7-8.) This allegation, without any further detail, fails to establish a cognizable constitutional claim against Burke. Thus, all claims against Defendants Anderson and Burke are dismissed.
Plaintiff moves to strike Anderson and Burke's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Arizona Attorney General lacked standing to file the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Anderson and Burke because Plaintiff is suing Anderson and Burke in their individual capacity. (Doc. 23.) However, Plaintiff provides no valid basis for these claims and the Motion to Strike is denied.
III. Defendant Arpaio
Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio moves to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to plead any cognizable claims against him. Plaintiff does not allege that Sheriff Arpaio personally participated in any aspect of the underlying action. Instead, it appears that a deputy within Sheriff Arpaio's department arrested Plaintiff in compliance with Judge Anderson's contempt order during the underlying action. (Doc. 19 at 3-4.) Plaintiff concedes that Sheriff Arpaio was not ...