Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00239/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00239-0/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 

Scott Armstrong, Sr., et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00239-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendants D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton, Inc.-Dietz 

Crane’s Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Adeniji-Onasanwo, Beatty, Caggiano, 

Cutchon, Fornabai, Moran, and Payne Pursuant to the Statute of Repose, § 12-552 (Doc. 

16). 

To decide a motion to dismiss, “[a] court may consider evidence on which the 

complaint ‘necessarily relies’ if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the 

document is central to the plaintiff’s claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of 

the copy attached to the 12(b)(6) motion.” Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 

2006). Both sides have submitted exhibits (Docs. 16-1, 46-1) that do not satisfy the 

foregoing conditions and which the Court does not consider in deciding Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss. 

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “‘a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to 

‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 

Case 2:13-cv-00239-NVW Document 47 Filed 05/23/13 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957)). A claim must be stated clearly enough to provide 

each defendant fair opportunity to frame a responsive pleading. McHenry v. Renne, 84 

F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996). “Something labeled a complaint . . ., yet without 

simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails 

to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” Id. at 1180. 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 36) does not include the factual 

allegations necessary to determine whether any claims are barred by Arizona’s 

construction defect statute of repose, A.R.S. § 12-552. Because leave to amend should be 

freely given “when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiffs will be granted 

leave to file a further amended complaint. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. 

Horton, Inc.-Dietz Crane’s Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Adeniji-Onasanwo, 

Beatty, Caggiano, Cutchon, Fornabai, Moran, and Payne Pursuant to the Statute of 

Repose, § 12-552 (Doc. 16) is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 36) is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by 

June 7, 2013. 

Dated this 23rd day of May, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00239-NVW Document 47 Filed 05/23/13 Page 2 of 2