Smith v. TransUnion
Alvin James Smith v. TransUnion
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Smith requested an evidentiary hearing in opposition to Defendant TransUnion's motion to dismiss. The court denied the request, stating that an evidentiary hearing is inappropriate at the motion to dismiss stage where the court is limited to the pleadings.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Request for evidentiary hearing denied“Since an evidentiary hearing would not assist the Court in adjudicating the pending motion to dismiss, (see ECF 37), plaintiff’s request is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for a motion to dismiss, which generally precludes the consideration of evidence outside the pleadings. Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is procedurally improper at this stage. The court also correctly noted that the remaining arguments in the opposition are taken under advisement. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural stage (motion to dismiss) and applies the appropriate legal standard (limited to pleadings) to deny the request for an evidentiary hearing. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the plaintiff's request.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Alvin James SMITH, Case No.: 24-cv-1727-AGS-BJW 4 Plaintiff} ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 5 || y AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ECF 38) 6 || TRANSUNION, 7 Defendant. 8 9 As part of his opposition to defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, plaintiff 10 ||““demand[s]” an “evidentiary hearing by this court.” (ECF 38, at 2.) As previously 11 explained, though, “we’re not at the proof stage of this proceeding: the pleadings are 12 |/unsettled[ and] no summary-judgment motion or trial is imminent.” (ECF 35, at 7.) When 13 considering “a motion to dismiss,” the Court is not permitted to “consider evidence 14 || beyond” the complaint; it must instead “take as true the well-pleaded facts in the plaintiffs 15 || complaint.” Stanley v. City of Sanford, Fla.,606 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 2058, 2062 (2025). 16 || Since an evidentiary hearing would not assist the Court in adjudicating the pending motion 17 ||to dismiss, (see ECF 37), plaintiff’s request is denied.! This does not impact the other 18 |/arguments made in opposition, though, which are taken under advisement. 19 || Dated: October 3, 2025 20 1 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 22 23 25 26 ' Through several emails to the Court, Smith has made the same request. Smith is advised that any request for relief or action should be filed as a motion, as he appropriately 27 here. Emails requesting relief from the court will be disregarded. Smith is also 28 admonished to cease cc’ing the Court on emails sent to opposing counsel. The Court’s email box is for procedural assistance only. ]