Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02581/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02581-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE SAKAI, in his capacity as Trustee of

the Fusako Sakai 1995 Revocable Trust

under Trust Agreement dated June 27,

1995,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MERRILL LYNCH LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-06-2581 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 51)

Before the Court is the motion filed November 2, 2006 by defendants Merrill Lynch

Life Insurance Company and Merrill Lynch Life Agency, Inc. to dismiss the Second

Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiff Dale Sakai, in his

capacity as trustee of the Fusako Sakai 1995 Revocable Trust, has filed opposition to the

motion; defendants have filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and

in opposition to the motion, as well as the arguments of counsel at the December 15, 2006

hearing, and for the reasons set forth at the hearing, the Court hereby rules as follows:

1. To the extent defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that the complaint is

time-barred as pleaded, and that the fraud claim fails to comply with the requirements of

Rule 9(b), the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. In all other respects, the motion to dismiss

Case 3:06-cv-02581-MMC Document 56 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

is DENIED. Plaintiff is afforded leave to file, no later than January 5, 2006, an amended

complaint to address the deficiencies noted.

2. The motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 51.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02581-MMC Document 56 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2