Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00131/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

KOLE MCADAMS,

 NO. CIV. S-08-0131 WBS KJM

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

JESSICA DUNN, and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Defendant moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging

causes of action for common law fraud and breach of contract

arising from the purchase of real property.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On August 13, 2005, plaintiff and defendant purportedly

entered into a purchase agreement with respect to real property

located at 1572 52nd Street in Sacramento, California. (Pl.’s

Mem. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 2:4-5.) While conducting

a subsequent inspection, plaintiff asserts that she learned of

Case 2:08-cv-00131-WBS -KJN Document 12 Filed 02/28/08 Page 1 of 6
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

1 Plaintiff’s cause of action for fraud is apparently

based on allegations pertaining to defendant’s intentional or

negligent misrepresentation, concealment, and promise without

intent to perform. (Id. at 4-6.) The specific allegations are

unclear because, while the boxes required to be checked in order

to allege these additional causes of action are not marked on the

Form Complaint, some of their listed elements are marked. (Id.) 

2

defendant’s failure to provide full disclosure of all the defects

associated with the property. (Id. at 2:7-8.)

On December 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a Form Complaint

in the Superior Court of Sacramento County alleging causes of

action for fraud and breach of contract against defendant. 

(Compl. 1-2, 4-6.) The copy of the Complaint served on defendant

does not, however, provide any factual assertions demonstrating

fraud1 or the alleged breach. (Id. at 6.) Rather, the Complaint

merely references the existence of several attachments--

purportedly containing the requisite facts in support of

plaintiff’s proffered causes of action--none of which were

included in defendant’s copy. (E.g., id. at 4 (checked box

asserting presence of material facts “as stated in Attachment FR2.a”); see also Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 3:9-10

(“[S]everal attachments are referenced in the Complaint but were

not attached in the copy that was served upon [defendant].”).) 

Defendant also independently retrieved a copy of the Complaint

from the Superior Court only to discover that it too was missing

the referenced attachments. (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to

Dismiss 3 n.2.)

On January 18, 2008, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b),

defendant removed the case to this court based on diversity

jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Def.’s Notice of Removal ¶ 1.) 

Case 2:08-cv-00131-WBS -KJN Document 12 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 6
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

Citing the complete lack of factual allegations, defendant moves

to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. 

II. Discussion

A court must dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) if the

plaintiff’s factual allegations are not sufficient “to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.

v. Twombly (Twombly), 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1960 (2007). Therefore, a

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss evaluates “the formal sufficiency of

the statement of claim for relief.” Fednav Ltd. v. Sterling,

Int’l, 572 F. Supp. 1268, 1270 (N.D. Cal. 1983).

With respect to plaintiff’s breach of contract claim,

defendant’s motion to dismiss “tests plaintiff’s compliance with

the liberal requirements of Rule 8.” Provencio v. Armor

Holdings, Inc., No. 07-0651, 2007 WL 2814650, at *1 (E.D. Cal.

Sept. 25, 2007). Rule 8(a) requires “a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “While a complaint . . . does not need

detailed factual allegations, [Rule 8(a)] requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 127 S. Ct.

at 1964-65 (internal citations omitted).

Absent the missing attachments, plaintiff’s allegations

amount to mere checked, unadorned boxes on a form complaint

constituting the formulaic elements of a cause of action for

breach of contract. Because this end product fails to allege any

facts and relies purely on “labels and conclusions,” it cannot

Case 2:08-cv-00131-WBS -KJN Document 12 Filed 02/28/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

satisfy even the liberal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). Id.

Given plaintiff’s inability to satisfy his pleading

burden under Rule 8, the same factual insufficiency certainly

will not meet the particularity standard that is required to

substantiate his cause of action for fraud. Rule 9(b) provides

that “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with

particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Under this standard, the alleging party

must “state[] the time, place and nature of the alleged

fraudulent activities.” Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727, 735

(9th Cir. 1985). “Mere conclusory allegations of fraud are

insufficient.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531,

540 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, because the Complaint does not assert

the requisite facts constituting fraud, the remaining conclusory

allegations of fraud cannot satisfy the Rule 9(b) standard. Id.

In his opposition to the instant motion, plaintiff

states that “the missing [attachments] do in fact exist and will

be provided by a certified copy attached to a supplemental

declaration to be filed on February [20], 2008.” (Pl.’s Opp’n to

Mot. to Dismiss 4:3-4.) Nonetheless, this proposed action would

effectively deprive defendant of her right to be served with a

cognizable complaint that provides sufficient notice of the

claims against her in order to provide a defense. See Von

Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing and Wrestling Comm’n, 442 F.2d

1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1971) (plaintiff’s complaint must “advise

defendants sufficiently of the basis of [plaintiff’s] claim or

the facts upon which he was relying to enable [defendants] to

prepare an appropriate defense”). 

Case 2:08-cv-00131-WBS -KJN Document 12 Filed 02/28/08 Page 4 of 6
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 To this end, the court construes plaintiff’s opposition

to defendant’s motion to dismiss as an implicit request to amend

his Complaint. Rule 15(a) permits a plaintiff to freely amend a

complaint once as a matter of right before an answer is served,

as is the case here. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, the court

makes no assessment of the legal viability of the Complaint with

the attachments at this time. 

5

Specifically, plaintiff’s suggested method of simply

appending the missing attachments as a declaration exhibit

supplementing his opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss

does not constitute a proper filing or serving of the Complaint

on defendant. See Tercica, Inc. v. Insmed Inc., No. 05-5027,

2006 WL 1626930, at *6, *11 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2006) (denying

consideration of the plaintiff’s declaration exhibits filed

concurrent with his opposition to defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion “as

these documents cannot be used to supplement the First Amended

Complaint”). Moreover, submitting the certified copies after

defendant has already filed her motion to dismiss and just two

weeks prior to this motion’s scheduled oral argument hearing can

hardly be said to constitute fair notice with which to enable

defendant’s preparation of an appropriate defense. Von

Poppenheim, 442 F.2d at 1049.

Accordingly, the court must grant defendant’s motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint. However, because plaintiff can

presumably cure his Complaint through addition of the referenced

attachments, this court will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss

without prejudice.2

 See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Dismissal with prejudice

and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear

. . . that the complaint [can] not be saved by amendment.”). 

Case 2:08-cv-00131-WBS -KJN Document 12 Filed 02/28/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint be, and the same hereby is,

GRANTED. 

Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of this order

to file an amended complaint consistent with this order.

DATED: February 28, 2008

Case 2:08-cv-00131-WBS -KJN Document 12 Filed 02/28/08 Page 6 of 6