Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04713/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04713-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JENNIFER G. RAMOS, et al.,

 

Plaintiffs,

v.

THOMAS G. RAMOS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS

(Re: Docket Nos. 61, 63)

Defendants Thomas G. Ramos and Helen R. Instrella move to dismiss Plaintiffs Jennifer G. 

Ramos, Moises G. Ramos, Jr., Catherine R. Volkman, and Susan Nellie R. Nisperos’ Fourth 

Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

1

 Defendant Timothy G. Caoile separately 

moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

2

 Because 

Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Defendants’ motions are 

GRANTED but with leave to amend as required by the Ninth Circuit.

 

1

See Docket No. 61 at 1:21-27.

2

See Docket No. 63 at 3:21-27.

Case 5:14-cv-04713-PSG Document 72 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

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

I.

Feb. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits challenges to the legal sufficiency of the opposing party’s 

pleadings.3 The court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as true and construe 

them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.4 The court’s review is limited to the face 

of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which the 

court may take judicial notice.5 However, the court need not accept as true allegations that are 

conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.6

The Fourth Amended Complaint is Plaintiffs’ third attempt to amend their complaint to 

comply with the pleading rules established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).7 

The court previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ prior complaints for failure to clearly state a claim 

providing Defendants fair notice of the allegations against them.8 The court found that the “dates, 

people, estates, sales, agreements and duties [were] not clear, the facts [did] not clearly support the 

causes of action and legal conclusions abound[ed].”9 The court gave Plaintiffs leave to amend to 

address these defects.10

 

3

See Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 208 F.R.D. 288, 291 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

4

See Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008).

5

See id.

6

See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007) (“a wholly conclusory statement of [a] claim” will not

survive a motion to dismiss).

7

See Docket Nos. 32, 40.

8

See Docket No. 57 at 7:5-11.

9

Id. at 7:6-8.

10 See id. at 7:14-15.

Case 5:14-cv-04713-PSG Document 72 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

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

II.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).11

III.

Plaintiffs’ amended claims fail as follows.

First, Plaintiffs’ claims are insufficiently pled. The Fourth Amended Complaint, like its 

predecessors, does not clearly allege specific facts in support of each claim.12 Rather, each claim 

incorporates by reference nearly the entirety of the Fourth Amended Complaint’s 54 pages.

13

 This 

does not comply with Plaintiffs’ duty to “give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to 

defend itself effectively.”14

Second, although Plaintiffs have previously received leave to amend, the court cannot yet 

say that further amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs’ Opposition provides specific citations to 

the portions of the Fourth Amended Complaint that allegedly support Plaintiffs’ claims.15

Accordingly, it may be possible for Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to concisely state the facts 

supporting each claim, so that Defendants will have fair notice of the claims against them.

 

11 See Docket Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 31, 54.

12 See Docket No. 58 at 44:18-48:11.

13 See id. at 44:20-21, 45:20-21, 46:19-20, 47:22-23.

14 Cf. Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995).

15 See Docket No. 64 at 5:2-3, 5:5-7, 5:11-13, 5:15-17, 5:19-20, 5:25-26, 6:1-2, 6:7-9, 6:16, 6:19, 

6:21-22, 6:25, 6:28, 7:21-22, 8:5, 8:8, 8:11, 8:18-19, 8:23-25, 8:28, 9:1-2, 9:21-22, 9:24-26, 9:28-

10:2, 10:4-5, 10:7-9.

Case 5:14-cv-04713-PSG Document 72 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

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

IV.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED. Dismissal without leave to amend is only 

appropriate if it is clear that the complaint cannot be saved by amendment.

16

 Because the court 

cannot yet say that amendment would be futile, leave to amend also is GRANTED. Any amended 

complaint shall be filed by September 15, 2015.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

16 See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

Case 5:14-cv-04713-PSG Document 72 Filed 09/01/15 Page 4 of 4