Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03368/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03368-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C-10-3368 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD CAUSE

OF ACTION; DISMISSING THIRD

CAUSE OF ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND; VACATING JANUARY 7,

2011 HEARING

Before the Court is defendant Standard Insurance Company’s “Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action,” filed November 24, 2010. Plaintiff Christopher Murray

has filed opposition, to which defendant has replied. Having read and considered the

papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter

suitable for decision on the parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES the January

7, 2011 hearing, and rules as follows.

By order filed October 21, 2010, the Court dismissed the Third Cause of Action,

titled “Fraud,” as alleged in plaintiff’s initial complaint, for the reason that plaintiff had not

pleaded the claim in conformity with Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

afforded plaintiff leave to amend to plead a fraud claim in conformity therewith. Plaintiff

thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in which he amended the Third Cause

of Action. By the instant motion, defendant argues that plaintiff has, again, failed to plead

Case 3:10-cv-03368-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/03/11 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

1

The Court has diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims (see FAC ¶ 3), and plaintiff

seeks relief under California law.

2

the Third Cause of Action with the requisite particularity. The Court agrees.

First, although the Court afforded plaintiff leave to allege the identity of the

speaker(s) of the assertedly false statements, and to allege when the statements were

made, plaintiff has failed to cure such deficiencies. Specifically, the amended Third Cause

of Action again fails to allege the identity of any of the speaker(s) or the time(s) at which

any of the challenged statements were made. Consequently, the Third Cause of Action is

subject to dismissal. See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir.

2003) (“Averments of fraud must be accompanied by ‘the who, what, when, where, and

how’ of the misconduct alleged.”) 

Second, and of equal or greater significance, plaintiff, despite having been afforded

leave to allege with particularity facts showing any such statements were false when made,

has failed to cure the noted deficiency. For example, although plaintiff adequately alleges

defendant failed to comply with its obligations under an insurance policy, the amended

Third Cause of Action fails to allege with particularity facts to support a finding that

defendant, in essence, knew at the time it entered the subject insurance contract that it

would not comply with the terms of the policy. See Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc., 39 Cal. 3d

18, 30 (1985) (rejecting argument that “subsequent failure to perform as promised [under

contract] warrants the inference that defendant did not intend to perform when she made

the promise”; finding California law instead requires “something more than

nonperformance” to establish fraud claim based on failure to perform contractual promise).1

Consequently, the Third Cause of Action is subject to dismissal for this additional reason. 

See Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding Rule 9(b) requires

plaintiff to allege “sufficient evidentiary facts” to support finding challenged “statements

were false when made”), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1136 (1996).

Because the Court previously afforded plaintiff leave to cure the above-referenced

deficiencies, which deficiencies plaintiff has failed to cure, the Court declines to afford

Case 3:10-cv-03368-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/03/11 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

2

The Court further notes that the scope of relief available under plaintiff’s Second

Cause of Action, alleging a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing, appears either to equal or exceed the scope of relief available under a fraud claim. 

See, e.g., Major v. Western Home Ins. Co., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1197 (2009) (affirming

judgment awarding plaintiff, on claim against insurer for breach of implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing, economic damages, noneconomic damages, and punitive damages,

as well as attorney’s fees incurred to obtain benefits due under policy).

3

plaintiff further leave to amend. See Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 970, 976

(9th Cir. 2002) (holding, where district court dismissed complaint with leave to amend to

cure stated deficiency and amended complaint failed to cure stated deficiency, district court

properly denied plaintiff further leave to amend).2

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the Third Cause of Action will be granted,

and the Third Cause of Action will be dismissed without further leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion is hereby GRANTED, and the

Third Cause of Action is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2011 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-03368-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 3