Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Citation
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Parent Document
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2004-01-26
Other Sections in This Document (51)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
- Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Full Text
1,244 chars6 The defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Edwards then retained counsel and obtained extra time in which to file a response. The district court, in an order filed July 25, 2002, dismissed the FHA retaliation claim without leave to amend because Edwards "failed to allege that she engaged in any `protected activity'" under the FHA. In so ruling, the district court held that protesting dangerous conditions on residential premises is not, as such, a protected activity. The RICO claim was dismissed with leave for Edwards to amend so as to plead the alleged fraud with the specificity demanded by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).5 The constitutional claims were dismissed, as none of the defendants is a state actor, but Edwards was given leave to amend with analogous state constitutional claims that might be viable against private parties. The nuisance and emotional distress claims were dismissed with prejudice, the former for failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement, see Cal. Civil Code § 798.84, the latter because the conduct as alleged was insufficiently outrageous, as a matter of law, to state a claim.