Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00538/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00538-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

18-CV-538-CAB-MDD

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMERICA INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION and NORMERICA 

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LITTERPURRFECT, L.P. and IN 

BUCCO AL LUPO, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-538-CAB-MDD

ORDER ON NORMERICA’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD 

AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

[Doc. No. 96]

LITTERPURRFECT, L.P.,

Counter Claimant,

v.

NORMERICA INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, NORMERICA INC., 

LAWRENCE KATZ, and KEITH 

WILSON,

Counter Defendants.

Plaintiffs Normerica International Corporation and Normerica Inc. (together, 

“Normerica”) initiated this lawsuit against Defendants Litterpurrfect, L.P. (“Litterpurrfect” 

or “LP”), and In Bucco Al Lupo, Inc. (“IBAL”), with a complaint filed on March 14, 2018. 

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 104 Filed 02/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-CV-538-CAB-MDD

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

Almost a year later, the matter is now before the Court on Normerica’s motion to dismiss 

counterclaim number five for breach of contract from Litterpurrfect’s answer and third 

amended counterclaim (“TAC”). 

Normerica makes two arguments in support of its motion. First, it argues that the 

TAC fails to adequately plead all of the elements of a breach of contract claim. In 

connection with this argument, the parties dispute the level of particularity with which a 

breach of contract claim must be pled. Whether a breach of contract claim filed in federal 

court can survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) is governed by Rule 8 and the oft-cited Supreme Court cases of 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the nonconclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly 

suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 

962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying these standards, the 

TAC sufficiently states a breach of contract claim, but just barely.

Second, Normerica argues that an indemnification agreement in the contract in 

question bars Litterpurrfect from asserting a breach of contract claim against Normerica. 

None of the cases cited by Normerica for this argument stand for the proposition that an 

indemnification provision contained in a contract (even a broad provision such as the one 

in question here) could be construed as excusing the party receiving the benefit of the 

indemnity from any liability for a claim of breach of the contract itself brought by the other 

party to the contract. Litterpurrfect correctly characterizes this argument as absurd.

Accordingly, Normerica’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 104 Filed 02/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2