Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07067/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07067-37/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MMCA GROUP, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO. et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-7067 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

BUSINESS RISKS INTERNATIONAL

LIMITED (U.K.)’S AMENDED MOTION

TO DISMISS

Before the Court is defendant Business Risks International (U.K.)’s (“BRI”) Amended

Motion to Dismiss, filed August 15, 2008 pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has filed opposition, to which BRI has replied. 

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,

the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and rules as

follows.

As BRI points out, the Court, by order filed May 29, 2008, dismissed pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6) plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint as against defendant Pinkerton

Consulting & Investigations, Inc. (“PC&I”). As BRI further points out, the only basis alleged

as to the liability of BRI is that “there exists an alter-ego and/or agency relationship

between BRI and PC&I.” (See Pl.’s Opp’n 6.) For the same reasons as PC&I was entitled

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 342 Filed 09/16/08 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

1

In light of this ruling, the Court does not address BRI’s alternative argument under

Rule 12(b)(2).

2

to dismissal, BRI likewise is entitled to dismissal.1 Further, for the reasons stated in the

Court’s order of May 29, 2008, plaintiff’s request for leave amend its complaint a third time

will be denied. 

Accordingly, BRI’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is

hereby GRANTED and plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED as

against BRI.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 342 Filed 09/16/08 Page 2 of 2