Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05476/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05476-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel DeClements and Sam Tuli, 

individually and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

RE/MAX LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-05476-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant RE/MAX LLC’s (“RE/MAX”) Motion to Dismiss 

Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 11). 

Without expressing an opinion on the merits of RE/MAX’s motion, the Court shall sua 

sponte dismiss Plaintiffs Daniel DeClements and Sam Tuli’s (“Plaintiffs”) Complaint 

(Doc. 1) for failure to comply with Rules 8(a) and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

In relevant part, Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “(2) a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Each allegation must 

be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Even where a complaint has the 

factual elements of a cause of action present, it may nevertheless be dismissed for failure 

to satisfy Rule 8(a) if the elements are scattered throughout the complaint and not organized 

into a “short and plain statement of the claim.” See Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 

F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 2:19-cv-05476-NVW Document 16 Filed 06/10/20 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

Under Rule 10(b), if a complaint contains multiple claims, “each claim founded on 

a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count or defense” “[i]f 

doing so would promote clarity.” “Separate counts will be required if necessary to enable 

the defendant to frame a responsive pleading or to enable the court and the other parties to 

understand the claims.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Separate counts have been required “where 

multiple claims are asserted, where they arise out of separate transactions or occurrences, 

and where separate statements will facilitate a clear presentation.” Id. at 840-841 (internal 

citation omitted). 

The Complaint will be dismissed because it does not contain a short and plain 

statement of each of Plaintiffs’ three claims. See Martin v. Medtronic, Inc., 63 F. Supp. 3d 

1050, 1061 (D. Ariz. 2014) (“‘When a complaint fails to comply with’ Rule 8(a)(2), ‘the

district court has the power, on motion or sua sponte, to dismiss the complaint.’” (quoting 

Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995))). Indeed, the Complaint is replete with 

general allegations (mostly concerning RE/MAX’s alleged marketing practices) without 

ascertainable legal relevance to any particular claim. As a result, it is not clear which 

allegations support which claim. 

Making matters cloudier is the fact that each claim incorporates by reference the 

scantly differentiated mass of prior allegations in the entire 42-page complaint. By 

intermingling essentially all substantive allegations, Plaintiffs violate Rule 10(b). See 

Hanks v. Andrews, No. CV 05-2275, PHX-NVW, 2006 WL 1371625, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 

15, 2006). RE/MAX should not have to guess which of Plaintiffs’ allegations—many of 

which implicate the conduct of non-parties—relate to itself and each claim for relief. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Daniel DeClements and Sam Tuli’s 

Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed, with leave to amend by June 24, 2020. No further leave 

to amend will be granted. 

Case 2:19-cv-05476-NVW Document 16 Filed 06/10/20 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant RE/MAX LLC’s Motion to Dismiss 

Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 11) is 

denied without prejudice to renewing it within 21 days of being served with an amended 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment dismissing this action 

with prejudice after June 24, 2020, if Plaintiffs Daniel DeClements and Sam Tuli have not 

filed an amended complaint by then. 

Dated: June 10, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-05476-NVW Document 16 Filed 06/10/20 Page 3 of 3