Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00918/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00918-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

Auto Now Financial Services, Inc., dba 

Tico Rico Te Ayuda, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mohammed H. Abdeljaber and Jane Doe 1 

Abdeljaber; Rafat Abdeljaber and Jane Doe 

2 Abdeljaber; Nashat Hasan Abdeljaber and 

Jane Doe 3 Abdeljaber; SW Money 

Express, LLC; AZ Tune Up Masters, LLC; 

NRM Investors, LLC; all of the foregoing 

Defendants dba Tia Rica, Tia Rica No Te 

Friega, Mr. Cash For Gold, Mr. Cash For 

Titulos; Gladys Martinez and John Doe 

Martinez; Black and White Corporations 1-

10; John Does and Jane Does 1-10, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-13-00918-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 Before the Court is the Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Defendants Mohammed 

and Jane Doe 1 Abdeljaber, Rafat and Jane Doe 2 Abdeljaber, Nashat and Jane Doe 3 

Abdeljaber, AZ Tune Up Masters, LLC, and NRM Investors, LLC (“Defendants’ 

Motion”) (Doc. 76), as well as Plaintiff’s Response. No Reply was filed. (See Doc. 81.) 

Defendants’ Motion will be denied. 

 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be 

based on “the lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged 

under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 

Case 2:13-cv-00918-NVW Document 87 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

(9th Cir. 1990). To avoid dismissal, a complaint need include “only enough facts to state 

a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact 

are assumed to be true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 

Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). Finally, a court generally may 

not consider any material beyond the pleadings when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 

 Defendants’ Motion is broadly premised on two arguments: (1) the Complaint 

fails to assert a theory of liability that extends beyond Defendant SW Money Express, 

LLC (“SW Money”) to the other defendants; and (2) the Complaint fails to include the 

specificity required of claims sounding in fraud. (Doc. 76 at 2.) Auto Now contends in 

turn that Defendants failed to follow this Court’s required meet-and-confer procedure and 

that the alter-ego theory of liability (alternatively, piercing the corporate veil) discussed 

by Defendants is not the only theory under which Auto Now sues Defendants. Further, 

Auto Now argues that the Complaint sufficiently states a claim under the theory of alterego liability and that it need not satisfy the fraud requirement for such a claim. 

 Defendants’ counsel certified that it attempted to confer with Auto Now as 

required by this Court’s Order dated May 6, 2013 (Doc. 6). (See Doc. 76 at 21.) That 

Order mandates a meeting between parties prior to a motion to dismiss and that the 

parties certify that they “have conferred to determine whether an amendment could cure a 

deficient pleading, and have been unable to agree that the pleading is curable” if a party 

does file such a motion. (Doc. 6 at 1.) Auto Now explains that Defendants’ counsel 

contacted Auto Now’s counsel to initiate the meet-and-confer process but did not await a 

reply before filing Defendants’ Motion. Such an attempt by Defendants’ counsel is 

entirely insufficient to satisfy this Court’s Order and is a basis for denial of Defendants’ 

Motion. 

 // 

 // 

Case 2:13-cv-00918-NVW Document 87 Filed 08/13/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

 However, Defendants’ Motion also fails, and will be denied, on its merits. It 

hinges on the assumption that Auto Now has sued a number of individual and LLC 

defendants under theories of piercing and reverse-piercing the corporate veil, all for 

misconduct by Defendant SW Money. However, Auto Now alleges misconduct by each 

Defendant on whose behalf Defendants’ Motion was filed. For example, Auto Now’s 

First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants Mohammed, Rashat, and Nashat 

Abdeljaber “repeatedly contacted [Auto Now’s employee] while she was still employed 

by Plaintiff. The purpose of the contacts was to solicit the cooperation of [that employee] 

in stealing Plaintiff’s confidential information” for Defendants’ benefit. (Doc. 51 ¶ 24.) 

As another example, Auto Now alleges that Defendant NRM Investors, LLC “licensed 

nine of its ten locations within days of hiring [Auto Now’s former employee],” (id. ¶ 25), 

potentially allowing for an inference of wrongdoing by NRM Investors, LLC. Auto Now 

has grounded its First Amended Complaint in large part on the theory that each 

Defendant acted as a co-principal in the misappropriation of confidential information and 

other violations. As such, Auto Now need not allege sufficient facts to state a claim 

under a theory of alter-ego liability in order to survive Defendants’ Motion. The issue of 

whether Auto Now has laid out sufficient facts to support such a theory need not be and 

is not decided here. 

 In addition, Auto Now’s First Amended Complaint does not sound in fraud, and 

moreover Auto Now does not necessarily need to present its allegations with the 

particularity required for fraud claims, given the nature of its allegations. 

 Finally, both parties’ requests for attorney’s fees and costs will be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the Consolidated Motion to Dismiss 

Defendants Mohammed and Jane Doe 1 Abdeljaber, Rafat and Jane Doe 2 Abdeljaber, 

Nashat and Jane Doe 3 Abdeljaber, AZ Tune Up Masters, LLC, and NRM Investors, 

LLC (Doc. 76). 

 /// 

 /// 

Case 2:13-cv-00918-NVW Document 87 Filed 08/13/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the parties’ requests for attorney’s fees 

and costs. 

 Dated this 13th day of August, 2013. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-00918-NVW Document 87 Filed 08/13/13 Page 4 of 4