Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00096/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00096-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PAMELA NEWPORT,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

DELL INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 08-096-TUC-CKJ (JCG) 

ORDER

On August 21, 2008, Magistrate Jennifer C. Guerin issued a Report and

Recommendation [Doc. # 63] in which she recommended Defendant QualxServ, LLC’s

Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 43] be granted. The magistrate judge advised the parties that

written objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within ten days of

service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

Defendant has filed an objection. Plaintiff has not filed an objection and has not responded

to Defendant’s objection.

Defendant QualxServ, LLC’s Objections

The magistrate judge has recommended that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant

QualxServ, LLC (“Qualserv”) be granted, but that the claims be dismissed with leave to

amend. QualxServ asserts that the claims should be dismissed without leave to amend.

Case 4:08-cv-00096-CKJ-JCG Document 66 Filed 10/17/08 Page 1 of 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

1

Newport has not objected to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that she did not have

a contractual relationship with QualxServ. However, her response to the motion to dismiss

asserts that this is a question of fact. Newport’s First Amended Complaint, however, does

not set forth any basis to conclude that there was a contractual relationship between Newport

and QualxServ. 

- 2 -

In determining whether to permit Plaintiff Pamela Newport (“Newport”) the

opportunity to again amend her complaint, the Court considers the delay caused by repeated

amended complaints, prejudice to Defendants, futility, and bad faith. See DCD Programs

v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987); Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir.

1994). The Court finds permitting Newport to again amend her complaint would cause

further delay and would prejudice the Defendants. However, the Court also finds that there

has been no bad faith. The Court also considers that Newport has already filed an Amended

Complaint. See Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989)

(failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments is factor to be considered); Spano v.

SAFECO Inc. Co. of America, 215 F.R.D. 601 (D.Or. 2003), aff’d, — F.3d — (9th Cir.

2008). 

However, the Court also considers whether further amendments would be futile.

Qualxserv asserts that, because the juridical link doctrine is not applicable in this case and

Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 does not involve a consideration of standing, Newport’s contract1

 and fraud

claims should be dismissed without leave to amend. QualxServ agrees with the magistrate

judge’s determination that the juridical link doctrine and Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 does not obviate

the need for standing. 

Under the juridical link doctrine, a “named plaintiff in a class action might be able to

asserts claims against defendants with whom plaintiff has had no dealings in ‘situations in

which all injuries are the result of a conspiracy or concerted schemes between the defendants

at whose hands the class suffered injury’ or situations ‘in which all defendants are juridically

Case 4:08-cv-00096-CKJ-JCG Document 66 Filed 10/17/08 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

related in a manner that suggests a single resolution of the dispute would be expeditious.’”

Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 63], p. 5, quoting La Mar v. H & B Novelty & Loan

Co., 489 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1973). Further, Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 permits persons to be

jointed in one action as defendants if “(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly,

severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact

common to all defendants will arise in the action.”

However, neither the juridical doctrine or Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 address the standing

requirement. Rather, a named plaintiff in a class action “must allege and show that [she]

personally [has] been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified

members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.” Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357 (1996), citation omitted. Newport’s claims that all defendants

acted in concert, under theories of agency, partnership, joint venture and/or authority, do not

address any injury she suffered by the conduct of QualxServ. Indeed, QualxServ’s motion

to dismiss as to the original Complaint raised the same deficiency that QualxServ’s alleged

involvement was related to other Dell customers, not to Newport. See Motion to Dismiss

Memorandum [Doc. # 22], pp. 2 and 3. Newport was aware of this purported deficiency but

failed to allege adequate facts to establish standing. Newport’s failure to cure this deficiency

is an appropriate consideration. See Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. Newport having had two

opportunities to allege sufficient facts to establish standing, including one opportunity after

the issue was raised by QualxServ, the Court finds permitting a further amendment would

be futile. Accordingly, all claims against QualxServ will be dismissed without leave to

amend.

After an independent review, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 63] is ADOPTED in part.

2. QualxServ’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 43] is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against QualxServ are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO

Case 4:08-cv-00096-CKJ-JCG Document 66 Filed 10/17/08 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

AMEND.

4. QualxServ is DISMISSED from this action.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2008.

Case 4:08-cv-00096-CKJ-JCG Document 66 Filed 10/17/08 Page 4 of 4