Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01276/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01276-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GEC US 1 LLC, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

FRONTIER RENEWABLES, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

FRONTIER RENEWABLES, LLC,

 Counterclaim Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ACTIV SOLAR GMBH, et al.,

 Counterclaim Defendants. 

Case No.: 16-cv-1276 YGR

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BALDUIN 

HESSE AND REINHARD HESSE’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE THE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 141 

TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

In an Order of this date, the Court provides a synopsis of the parties and claims which it 

adopts here. 

On September 7, 2016, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ conversion claim as to defendants 

Balduin Hesse and Reinhard Hesse (collectively the “individual defendants”), finding that “the 

totality of the allegations against the individual defendants in their individual, as opposed to their 

corporate, capacities is conclusory.” (Order on Motions to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 120, at 13.) 

Specifically, the Court found plaintiffs had not pleaded properly that (1) “the individual 

defendants themselves made any particular decision(s) to exert control over Wright Solar 

improperly” and (2) “the individual defendants personally possessed the converted property 

interest.” (Id.) At oral argument on the previous motion to dismiss, counsel for plaintiffs also 

Case 4:16-cv-01276-YGR Document 197 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

represented that he was unaware of additional facts to be alleged against the individual defendants. 

(Id. at 15, n. 8.) 

Nonetheless, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint on 

November 3, 2016 to afford plaintiffs an opportunity to cure the noted deficiencies. (Dkt. No. 

137.) Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint (“SAC”) on November 3, 2016. (Dkt. No. 

138.) As to the individual defendants, the SAC only alleges conversion (Count Three), a claim 

which is only brought by plaintiff AS (Wright). 

The individual defendants again move to dismiss the claim for conversion as not properly 

pled against them, arguing that the claim for conversion remains facially implausible. (Dkt. No. 

141.) The Court agrees. Plaintiff AS (Wright) has once again failed to plead properly that the 

individual defendants personally possess any allegedly converted property. 

In its opposition to the motion, Dkt. No. 152 at 5, plaintiff AS (Wright) points to Paragraph 

83 of the SAC, but a nearly identical paragraph was already pleaded in the first, failed attempt to 

allege a conversion claim against the individual defendants. (Compare SAC ¶ 83, with First 

Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 70, ¶ 71.) A comparison shows that plaintiff AS (Wright) only 

adds a conclusory allegation that individual defendants “neglected those official fiduciary duties to 

AS (Wright).” Paragraph 83 of the SAC therefore adds no factual allegations. 

Plaintiff AS (Wright) also relies heavily on Paragraph 84 of the SAC, Dkt. No. 152 at 6, 

which alleges that: 

As the controlling members and officers of Frontier, the Individual Defendants’ 

intentional decision to steal AS (Wright)’s interests has resulted in possession of 

AS (Wright)’s interest and the increase in value of their own personal membership 

interests in Wright Solar. 

This too parrots one previously pleaded and fails to allege adequately that the individual 

defendants (as opposed to Frontier) possess any allegedly converted property interest in Wright 

Solar. (Compare SAC ¶ 83, with First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 70, ¶ 72.) Even if Frontier 

did improperly take possession of the property at issue, plaintiff AS (Wright) once again fails to 

explain how this necessarily translates to the individual defendants personally possessing the 

property, even assuming that the individual defendants are controlling members of Frontier with 

Case 4:16-cv-01276-YGR Document 197 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

full decision-making authority. 

Finally, individual defendants ask that the Court dismiss the SAC with prejudice as to the 

individual defendants. The Court agrees that plaintiff AS (Wright) should not be afforded a fourth 

opportunity to plead these claims, where plaintiff AS (Wright) has so obviously ignored the 

deficiencies identified by the Court in its initial Order dismissing the conversion claim against the 

individual defendants. Thus, further amendment would be futile and a waste of judicial and party 

resources. 

Accordingly, the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC is GRANTED. Count 

Three is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the individual defendants.

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 141. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 15, 2017 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-01276-YGR Document 197 Filed 02/15/17 Page 3 of 3