JAMES MAHAN, District Judge
Presently before the court are defendant's motion to dismiss (#29) filed on April 24, 2007, motion requesting leave to amend answer (#40) filed on May 22, 2007, and motion requesting a cease and desist order (#41) filed on May 22, 2007. Plaintiff filed a response to motion to dismiss (#31) on May 14 2007. Plaintiff filed a response to motion requesting a cease and desist order (#45) on June 6, 2007. Defendant filed a reply (#48) on June 12, 2007.
1. Motion to Dismiss
Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint (#29) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) alleges plaintiff made misrepresentations in the complaint. "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint in the context of a motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded allegations of a complaint must be treated as true. Miree v. Dekalb County, Ga., 433 U.S. 25 (1977).
The complaint (#1) alleges, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and conversion against defendant. In reviewing the sufficiency of defendant's motion to dismiss, the court must accept all allegations contained in the complaint as true, regardless of any misrepresentations made therein. Consequently, plaintiff's alleged misrepresentations are an insufficient basis for a motion to dismiss.
2. Leave to Amend
Defendant's motion requesting leave to amend answer (#40) alleges his limited access to a law library while incarcerated resulted in deficiencies in his answer. No opposition has been filed. "[A] party may amend the party's pleading . . . by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). According to defendant, while incarcerated at the North Las Vegas Detention Center, he has been subjected to long periods of lock down and allowed only one hour of access to a law library per week which did not afford him an opportunity to conduct thorough legal research. Therefore, leave to amend is proper in this case.
3. Cease and Desist Order
Defendant filed a motion requesting a cease and desist order (#41) alleging "well known associates of the defendants are being constantly harassed by plaintiffs with acts notwithstanding dissuasion, coercion, and threats that are terrorizing those close relationships." (Docket #41, p1:19-23). "An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds thereof, and shall set forth the relief or order sought." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1). The standard for particularity is whether the "document filed affords notice of the grounds and prayer of the motion to both the court and to the opposing party, providing that party with a meaningful opportunity to respond and the court with enough information to process the motion correctly" See Fort James Corp. v. Solo Cup Co., 412 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Registration Control Sys., Inc. v. Compusystems, Inc., 922 F.2d 805, 807-808 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Defendant failed to state the grounds upon which his motion is based with particularity. Defendant neither names his "well known associates" who are being harassed nor identifies the acts which he thinks are improper. Consequently, defendant's motion does not afford plaintiff fair notice of defendant's allegations or a meaningful opportunity to respond. Further, the court cannot craft a meaningful order without knowing the identities of the persons being harassed.
In addition, defendant's motion contains no points and authorities supporting his request for relief. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(a) "[a]ll motions, unless made during a hearing or trial . . . shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities." Motions must contain factual evidence to support allegations made and legal authority to support conclusions drawn. "The failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion shall constitute a consent to the denial of the motion." LR 7-2(d). Defendant offers no factual or legal support for the allegations and conclusions contained in his motion.
Having reviewed defendant's motion requesting a cease and desist order (#41), defendant's motion requesting leave to amend answer (#40), defendant's motion to dismiss (#29), all relevant documents in this matter, and for good cause shown:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant's motion to dismiss (#29) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion requesting leave to amend answer (#40) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion for a cease and desist order (#41) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.