Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8626662
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Clark v. Zeiger
No. 8626662 · Decided December 8, 2006
No. 8626662·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
December 8, 2006
Citation
No. 8626662
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** John Clark appeals pro se the district court’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his diversity action against Lawrence Harvey Zeiger aka Larry King, Cable News Network, LP, and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., alleging defamation, libel, slander, assault and interference of judicial processes. For the reasons set forth in Judge Byrne’s order dated August 4, 2005, granting appellees’ motion to dismiss, we affirm. Clark’s other arguments on appeal are equally meritless. Clark was not entitled to discovery prior to dismissal because it is a purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) to allow a defendant to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint’s allegations without first subjecting itself to discovery. See Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir.1987). The Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Clark’s complaint also did not violate Clark’s right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765 , 771 n. 8 (9th Cir.1981). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *613 courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** John Clark appeals pro se the district court’s Fed.R.Civ.P.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** John Clark appeals pro se the district court’s Fed.R.Civ.P.
0212(b)(6) dismissal of his diversity action against Lawrence Harvey Zeiger aka Larry King, Cable News Network, LP, and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., alleging defamation, libel, slander, assault and interference of judicial processes.
03For the reasons set forth in Judge Byrne’s order dated August 4, 2005, granting appellees’ motion to dismiss, we affirm.
04Clark was not entitled to discovery prior to dismissal because it is a purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) to allow a defendant to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint’s allegations without first subjecting itself to discovery.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** John Clark appeals pro se the district court’s Fed.R.Civ.P.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Clark v. Zeiger in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on December 8, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8626662 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.