Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00096/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00096-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PAMELA NEWPORT,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

DELL INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 08-096-TUC-CKJ (JCG) 

ORDER

On August 21, 2008, Magistrate Jennifer C. Guerin issued a Report and

Recommendation [Doc. # 62] in which she recommended Dell Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss [Doc. # 44] be granted in part and denied in part. The magistrate judge advised the

parties that written objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within ten

days of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. 

After an independent review, the Court finds dismissal of the claims as set forth by

the magistrate judge to be appropriate. The magistrate judge clearly recommended that

Plaintiff’s fraud and contract claims, with exception of the claims regarding next business

day service and repairs, be dismissed with leave to amend. The magistrate judge, however,

did not recommend that Plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment and a declaratory judgment

be dismissed with leave to amend.

In determining whether to permit the opportunity to again amend her complaint, the

Court considers the delay caused by repeated amended complaints, prejudice to Defendants,

Case 4:08-cv-00096-CKJ-JCG Document 65 Filed 10/17/08 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

futility, and bad faith. See DCD Programs v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987);

Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court finds permitting Plaintiff to

again amend her complaint would cause further delay and would prejudice the Defendants.

However, the Court also finds that there has been no bad faith. The Court also considers that

Newport has already filed an Amended Complaint. See Moore v. Kayport Package Exp.,

Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments

is factor to be considered); Spano v. SAFECO Inc. Co. of America, 215 F.R.D. 601 (D.Or.

2003), aff’d, — F.3d — (9th Cir. 2008). 

However, the Court also considers whether further amendments would be futile. As

stated by the magistrate judge, Plaintiff has a legal remedy for the injury alleged as a result

of the unjust enrichment. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for unjust enrichment. See

Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 548 P.2d 1166 (Ariz, 1976). Permitting Plaintiff to amend her

claim of unjust enrichment would be futile. This claim, therefore, will be dismissed without

leave to amend.

As to Plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory judgment, Plaintiff admits that her warranties

are no longer in effect; therefore, she is not entitled to the relief sought. Dismissal without

leave to amend is appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 62] is ADOPTED;

2. Dell Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 44] is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART.

3. Plaintiff’s claims regarding failure to provide next day service or repairs is

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

4. Plaintiff’s fraud claims as alleged in Counts 1, 2, 6, and 7 are DISMISSED

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

5. Plaintiff's contract claims regarding the opt-out of the initial warranty and

refurbished parts as alleged in Counts 3, 4, and 5 are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO

Case 4:08-cv-00096-CKJ-JCG Document 65 Filed 10/17/08 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

AMEND.

6. Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND.

7. Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment is DISMISSED WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND. 

8. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of

the filing of this Order.

9. This matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin for further

pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28

U. S. C. § 636(b)(1) and L.R.Civ.P. 72.1 and 72.2.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2008.

Case 4:08-cv-00096-CKJ-JCG Document 65 Filed 10/17/08 Page 3 of 3