Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01426/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01426-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441ds Removal- Contract Dispute

---

1

3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIE BUESING,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE 

INSURANCE CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

[Doc. Nos. 5, 6]

Plaintiff commenced this action in California Superior Court on April 18, 2017, 

bringing claims for breach of contract, fraud, and insurance bad faith against Defendants 

National Union Fire Insurance Corp.1and AIG, Inc. (Doc. No. 1 at 9.) On July 14, 2017, 

Defendants removed the action to federal court. (Doc. No. 1.) On July 21, 2017, Defendants 

National Union and AIG, Inc. filed separate motions to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 5, 6.) Plaintiff, 

who is represented by counsel, filed an opposition to AIG’s motion but did not file an 

opposition to National Union’s motion.2(Doc. No. 10.) AIG filed a reply on August 14, 

2017. (Doc. No. 11.)

 

1 While the complaint brings claims against an entity called National Union Fire Insurance Corp., 

Defendants refer to the entity as National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Doc. No. 1 

at 2.) In this order, the Court will refer to the Defendant as “National Union.”

2 Plaintiff filed two nearly identical oppositions to AIG’s motion. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10.) Plaintiff did not 

explain the reason for the two filings. The only difference between the filings seems to be the addition 

of two exhibits attached to the second filing. Accordingly, the Court presumes the second filing is the 

completed, and therefore intended, filing. 

Case 3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA Document 13 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA

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

The Court, pursuant to its discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines that the 

motions are fit for resolution without oral argument. The Court therefore submits the 

motions on the parties’ papers and vacates the scheduled hearing. For the reasons that 

follow, the Court grants the motions without prejudice. The Court dismisses the entire 

action as to all Defendants with leave to amend.

Background

Plaintiff filed a form complaint in California Superior Court, and Defendants 

removed the case to federal court. (Doc. No. 1.) The form complaint contains very little 

information, but it does state that Plaintiff purchased two disability insurance policies and 

that Defendant National Union failed to pay disability benefits on the policies. (Id. at 9-

15.) In a conclusory fashion, the form states that National Union collected premiums from 

Plaintiff without any intention of performing. (Id. at 13.) The complaint also states, again 

in a conclusory fashion, that Defendants breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing by 

refusing to provide benefits, failing to investigate Plaintiff’s claims, refusing and failing to 

respond to Plaintiff, and looking for excuses to deny coverage. (Id. at 14.)

Discussion

I. Legal Standards

A. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A complaint must satisfy the 

pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 to evade dismissal under a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion. Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 640-41 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Rule 8(a) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 

(quotation marks and alteration notations omitted). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and 

Case 3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA Document 13 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA

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

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 

Id. (quotation marks, alteration notations, and citations omitted).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Hartmann v. Cal. 

Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Factual allegations must be enough 

to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing 5 

C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-36 (3d ed. 2004)).

B. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a complaint may be dismissed 

for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court 

has jurisdiction over the defendant. Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th 

Cir. 2006). But this demonstration requires that the plaintiff “make only a prima facie 

showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.” Love v. Assoc’d. 

Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601, 608 (9th Cir. 2010). To make this showing, “the plaintiff 

need only demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant.” 

Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). In challenging personal jurisdiction, 

a party may present evidence outside of the pleadings. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 

922 (9th Cir. 2001). “Unless directly contravened, [the plaintiff’s] version of the facts is 

taken as true,” and disputed facts must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Mattel, Inc. v. 

Greiner & Hausser GmbH, 354 F.3d 857, 862 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Harris Rutsky & Co. 

Ins. Servs. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Case 3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA Document 13 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA

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

II. Analysis 

A. National Union

National Union filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff, who is represented 

by counsel, did not file an opposition to the motion. National Union argues that the 

allegations in the form complaint are too vague to meet the pleading standards of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court agrees. While a complaint “does not need 

detailed factual allegations,” it must still contain enough facts to “give the defendant fair 

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555. Moreover, Plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level.” Id. Here, the form complaint contains almost no factual 

allegations. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff purchased insurance policies and that 

Defendants failed to pay on those policies. That is not enough information to make out a 

claim for fraud, breach of contract, or insurance bad faith. Accordingly, the Court grants 

the motion to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a new complaint with this Court. 

In order to survive another motion to dismiss, the new complaint must contain factual 

allegations sufficient to state claims for fraud, breach of contract, and insurance bad faith.

B. AIG, Inc.

AIG, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that service was improper, that 

the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over AIG, Inc., and that the complaint fails 

to state a claim against AIG, Inc. (Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to AIG’s 

motion, but the opposition does not address AIG’s argument that the form complaint failed 

to state a claim. (See Doc. No. 10 at 11.) Instead, the opposition contains a two-sentence 

statement asserting that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for insurance bad faith 

against AIG, Inc. (Id.) But the Court disagrees. The assertions in the complaint against 

AIG, Inc. are the same deficient assertions that are made against National Union. 

Accordingly, the Court grants AIG, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Case 3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA Document 13 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA

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

Based on Plaintiff’s current complaint, it is also unclear whether the Court has

personal jurisdiction over AIG, Inc. To establish personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff must

“demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant.” Ballard, 65 

F.3d at 1498. But Defendants may present evidence outside of the pleadings in order to 

challenge the asserted jurisdictional facts. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d at 922. Defendants argue 

that AIG, Inc. is a holding company, not an insurer or claims adjuster. (Doc. No 6-1 at 11.) 

Defendants attach AIG, Inc.’s annual report, which establishes that AIG, Inc. is the parent 

company of National Union. (Doc. No. 6-2 at 38, 40.) As a holding company, AIG, Inc. 

purportedly does not do any business in California. (Id. at 13:22-27.) Defendants also 

attach a document from the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, stating that AIG, Inc. 

is an insurance holding company organized under the laws of Delaware and with its 

principal place of business in New York. (Doc. No. 6-2 at 41-42.)

In response, Plaintiff submits two of Plaintiff’s claim forms that list National Union 

in the pre-printed address blocks. (Doc. No. 10-2.) Under National Union, the address 

blocks also list “AIG Claim Services” and “A&H Claims Department.” (Id.) According to 

Plaintiff, these forms demonstrate that AIG, Inc. has been involved in this matter. (Doc. 

No. 10 at 8.) But Plaintiff offers nothing to establish that AIG, Inc. and AIG Claim Services 

are the same entity. Indeed, AIG, Inc.’s annual report demonstrates that the parent company 

has numerous subsidiaries with names containing the initials “AIG.” (Doc. No. 6-2 at 38-

40.) For example, there is a subsidiary called AIG Claims, Inc. and another called AIG 

Property Casualty International. (Id. at 38.) AIG Claim Services could likewise be another 

subsidiary of AIG, Inc.

Accordingly, the two claim forms do not necessarily establish that AIG, Inc. has had

any contacts with the State of California. Such contacts would be required for the Court to 

exercise personal jurisdiction over AIG, Inc. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 

U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985) (specific jurisdiction); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. 

v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 (1984) (general jurisdiction). In drafting an amended 

complaint, Plaintiff should ensure that AIG, Inc. is the actual entity that Plaintiff intends to 

Case 3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA Document 13 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA

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

sue, and if so, Plaintiff should ensure that the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over 

AIG, Inc.

Conclusion

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety without prejudice for failing 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff may 

file an amended complaint that addresses the problems described in this order, if Plaintiff

can do so, within 30 days of the date of this order. An amended complaint must be complete 

by itself without reference to the original complaint. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space 

Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 973 n.14 (9th Cir. 2013).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 15, 2017

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:17-cv-01426-H-JMA Document 13 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6