Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03217/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03217-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

oAzium Collective, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company dba Waves in

Motion, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Vincenzo Mennano and Maria Mennano,

husband and wife, FM Nexus, LLC, a

California limited liability company;

Beezwax Datatools, Inc., a California

corporation, 

Defendants. _________________________________

Counterclaims and

Third-Party Claims 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3217-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Third-Party Defendant Robert W. Dunaway's ("Third-Party

Defendant Dunaway") Motion to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint. (Dkt.#12). After

reviewing the pleadings the Court issues the following Order.

I. Background

On August 26, 2005, Plaintiff oAzium Collective, LLC ("Plaintiff") filed an action in the

Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa under case number

CV 2005-052027 against Vincenzo and Maria Mennano, FMNexus, and Beezwax Data

Tools, Inc., (collectively "Defendants"). On October 12, 2005, Defendants filed a Notice

of Removal to this Court based upon diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Case 2:05-cv-03217-MHM Document 29 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

(Dkt.#1). On October 12, 2005, the Defendants filed their Answer in this matter. (Dkt.#4).

On October 19, 2005, Defendant Vincenzo Mennano ("Defendant Mennano") filed a ThirdParty Complaint against Third-Party Defendant Dunaway and Third-Party Defendant Marcus

Silving ("Third-Party Defendant Silving"). Defendant Mennano asserts the following claims

against Third-Party Defendant Dunaway: (1) Intentional Fraud; (2) Equitable Indemnity; and

(6) Declaratory Relief. (Third-Party Complaint ("Compl.") ¶'s 7-52). 

The Complaint asserts the above claims arise out the filing of Articles of Organization and

the drafting of a limited liability Operating Agreement in the formation of oAzium, LLC in

Arizona. (Compl. ¶ 9). Specifically, Third-Party Defendant Dunaway is alleged to be the

attorney who represented both Third-Party Defendant Marcus Silving and Defendant

Mennano in the drafting of these documents in forming oAzium. (Compl.¶9). Defendant

Mennano alleges that Third-Party Defendants Dunaway and Silving "knowingly and falsely"

represented to Defendant Mennano that the requirements specified by Defendant Mennano

were incorporated into the Operating Agreement. (Compl.¶13). The three requirements that

Defendant Mennano alleges that he communicated to Third-Party Defendants Dunaway and

Mennano are: (1) that Mennano and Silving were to have equal ownership; (2) that Mennano

and Silving were to have equal control and (3) the new company was to have a mechanism

permitting Mennano to extract himself on an expedited basis and retain at least non-exclusive

rights in the software assets if he felt the company was not operating satisfactorily.

(Comp.¶12). Defendant Mennano alleges that upon giving notice of his intent to leave in

June 2004, he was met with resistence and was rejected from a position at Apple Computer

Company based upon a representation from Third-Party Defendant Silving. (Compl.¶18). 

Third-Party Defendant now moves to dismiss Third-Party Plaintiff's claims pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6) Fed.R.Civ.P. for failure to state a claim. In making this motion, Third-Party

Defendant attaches his declaration as well as the subject Operating Agreement. Defendant

Mennano opposes the Motion. 

II. Legal Standard

Case 2:05-cv-03217-MHM Document 29 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely

granted. Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, the court will not dismiss a complaint unless it appears beyond a doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). 

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, all allegations of material fact are taken

as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Wyler Summit

Partnership v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir.1998). As such, an

inquiry into the adequacy of the evidence is improper when deciding whether to dismiss for

failure to state a claim. Enesco Corp. v. Price/Costco Inc., 146 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir.

1998).

Moreover, Rule 12(b)(6) Fed.R.Civ.P. provides that a motion to dismiss must be treated

as a motion for summary judgment when "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and

not excluded by the court." However, if the court does not rely on the extraneous matters,

the motion to dismiss will not be converted into a motion for summary judgment. See North

Star Intern. v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 720 F.2d 578, 581-82 (9th Cir. 1983)

III. Analysis 

Third-Party Defendant Dunaway provides no legal basis for dismissal at this early stage

in the lawsuit. The core argument advanced by Third-Party Defendant Dunaway is that the

facts alleged by Third-Party Plaintiff Mennano are simply not accurate. For instance, ThirdParty Defendant Dunaway states that "at no time did Mennano ever request the inclusion of

the three requirements in the Operating Agreement referenced in paragraph 12 of the

Complaint." (Dunaway Motion, p.2). Additionally, he alleges that he simply completed the

Operating Agreement pursuant to the wishes of both Mennano and Silving and that both

Mennano and Silving read and signed the Operating Agreement with little to no input from

Third-Party Defendant Dunaway. (Id.)

While, Third-Party Defendant Dunaway's claims may possess merit, the Court is obligated

to accept Defendant Mennano's allegations in the Complaint as true. Wyler Summit, 135

Case 2:05-cv-03217-MHM Document 29 Filed 05/22/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

F.3d at 661. As such, Third-Party Defendant Dunaway's factual challenges cannot form the

basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th

Cir. 2001) (stating that "factual challenges to a plaintiff's complaint have no bearing on the

legal sufficiency of the allegations under Rule 12(b)(6)"). These factual matters must be

play out in the course of discovery and are typically reserved for the finder of fact. As such,

the Court will deny Third-Party Defendant Dunaway's Motion to dismiss. 

Lastly, in determining that the Third-Party Complaint adequately states a claim against

Third-Party Defendant Dunaway, the Court points out that it has not considered the

extraneous documents submitted by Third-Party Defendant Dunaway in support of his

Motion and thus the present Motion is not converted into a motion for summary judgment.

See North Star, 720 F.2d at 581-82.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Third-Party Defendant Dunaway's Motion to

Dismiss Third-Party Complaint. (Dkt.#12).

DATED this 16th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03217-MHM Document 29 Filed 05/22/06 Page 4 of 4