Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00745/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00745-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSIE FRANK,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14cv745 BTM(NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. DISMISS

CITIGROUP INC. and CALFED INC.,

Defendants.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. For the

reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2014, Plaintiff Susie Frank commenced this suit. Plaintiff 

alleges that she is entitled to benefits under a retirement benefit plan (“Plan”). 

Plaintiff asserts claims under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA to recover benefits

under the Plan, Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA to enjoin violations of ERISA and

obtain appropriate equitable relief, and Section 502(a)(1)(A) of ERISA to obtain

relief for Defendants’ alleged failure and refusal to provide requested

information regarding the Plan.

 

1 14cv745 BTM(NLS)

Case 3:14-cv-00745-BTM-NLS Document 12 Filed 01/05/15 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

II. STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

should be granted only where a plaintiff's complaint lacks a "cognizable legal

theory" or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). When reviewing a

motion to dismiss, the allegations of material fact in plaintiff’s complaint are

taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See

Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Although detailed factual allegations are not required, factual allegations “must

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A plaintiff’s obligation to prove the

‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will

not do.” Id. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer

more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but

it has not show[n] that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 565

U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Only a complaint that

states a plausible claim for relief will survive a motion to dismiss. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a

claim. The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has not pled sufficient

facts to support her ERISA claims.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is completely lacking in factual support. The

Complaint does not specifically identify the Plan in question, does not state who

Plaintiff’s employer was, does not identify provisions of the plan which entitle

her to benefits, and fails to set forth facts regarding the numerous alleged

ERISA violations and alleged failure to provide requested information.

2 14cv745 BTM(NLS)

Case 3:14-cv-00745-BTM-NLS Document 12 Filed 01/05/15 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

Plaintiff’s opposition offers some factual details regarding Plaintiff’s claims,

however, the Court cannot consider these facts, which were not pled in the

Complaint.

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim

and grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to

file an amended complaint remedying the deficiencies discussed above. The

Court does not reach Defendants’ arguments – e.g., statute of limitations and

exhaustion of administrative remedies – regarding the new facts provided in

Plaintiff’s opposition. Defendants may raise these arguments in a motion to

dismiss the amended complaint if the arguments are still relevant.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint within 20

days of the filing of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 2, 2015

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

3 14cv745 BTM(NLS)

Case 3:14-cv-00745-BTM-NLS Document 12 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 3