Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01920/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01920-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark Infringement

---

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 

Brian G. Doherty, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Certified Financial Planner Board of 

Standards, Inc., 

Defendant. 

No. CV-12-01920-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6). 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

On a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), all allegations of material 

fact are assumed to be true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). Dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6) 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 (9th Cir. 1990). To avoid dismissal, a complaint need contain 

only “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The 

principle that a court accepts as true all of the allegations in a complaint does not apply to 

Case 2:12-cv-01920-NVW Document 8 Filed 11/13/12 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 

legal conclusions or conclusory factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. “A claim has facial plausibility when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 

Certain elements of fraud claims must satisfy a higher standard of pleading under 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In alleging fraud or mistake, malice, intent, 

knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally, but the 

circumstances must be alleged with particularity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Rule 9(b) requires 

allegations of fraud to be “specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular 

misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend 

against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.” Bly-Magee v. 

California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs alleging fraud “must state the 

time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the 

parties to the misrepresentations.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 

F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986); accord Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 553 

(9th Cir. 2007). 

Generally, material beyond the pleadings may not be considered in deciding a 

Rule 12(b)(6) motion. However, material properly submitted as part of the complaint and 

documents not physically attached to the complaint whose contents are alleged in a 

complaint and whose authenticity no party questions may be considered. Branch v. 

Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. 

County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002). 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Fraud 

The Complaint alleges that Defendant committed common law fraud by issuing a 

suspension order “in a manner directly contrary to its published disciplinary rules and 

Case 2:12-cv-01920-NVW Document 8 Filed 11/13/12 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 

regulations,” “failing to arrange a hearing fairly and honestly so that the licensee was 

afforded due process,” and scheduling a final hearing “based upon filings which 

unmistakably establish bias against the plaintiff.” Plaintiff contends that Florida 

substantive law applies, but he cites no authority showing that his pleading sufficiently 

alleges a fraud claim under Florida law. Regardless of whether Arizona or Florida 

substantive law applies, under federal procedural law, these allegations do not state a 

claim for fraud upon which relief can be granted. 

B. Due Process 

An action may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of constitutional 

rights against a person acting “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, 

or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia.” Plaintiff contends that he 

may bring a § 1983 action against Defendant because Defendant has “in essence” 

“contracted with the federal government for the use of trademarks and service marks.” 

Merely contracting with the federal government does not make Defendant a state actor, 

nor does it mean that Defendant was acting under color of state law when it allegedly 

deprived Plaintiff of his due process rights. Therefore, the Complaint fails to state a due 

process claim upon which relief can be granted. 

C. Leave to Amend 

Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). Although it appears futile for Plaintiff to amend his fraud and due process 

claims, it is possible that he could plead some other claim based on the alleged facts. 

Therefore, he will be granted leave to file an amended complaint if he chooses. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is 

granted. 

Case 2:12-cv-01920-NVW Document 8 Filed 11/13/12 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 that the Complaint is dismissed with leave to file an 

amended complaint by November 30, 2012, if Plaintiff so chooses. If Plaintiff does not 

file an amended complaint by November 30, 2012, the Clerk shall enter judgment 

dismissing this action with prejudice and shall terminate this case. 

Dated this 13th day of November, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01920-NVW Document 8 Filed 11/13/12 Page 4 of 4