Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01435/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01435-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CTX Mortgage Company, LLC
Counter Claimant
Fortress Investment Group, LLC
Defendant
Julie Hendrix
Counter Defendant
Timothy Murphy
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY MURPHY, and JULIE

HENDRIX, individually,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

CTX MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, and

DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:10-cv-01435-GEB-DAD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP,

LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS*

Defendant Fortress Investment Group, LLC (“Defendant”) moves

for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”), arguing that Plaintiffs have

failed to allege sufficient facts to state viable claims. In the

alternative, Defendant moves for a more definite statement under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) and moves to strike Plaintiffs’ request

for attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Plaintiffs did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as

required by Local Rule 230(c). 

For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s dismissal motion is

granted, and Defendant’s alternative motions for a more definite

Case 2:10-cv-01435-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 07/21/10 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

2

statement and to strike Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees are

denied as moot.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion tests the legal sufficiency

of the claims alleged in the complaint. Novarro v. Black, 250 F.3d 729,

732 (9 Cir. 2001). A pleading must contain “a short and plain th

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief

 . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must “give the

defendant fair notice of what the [plaintiff’s] claim is and the grounds

upon which relief rests . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only

where the complaint either 1) lacks a cognizable legal theory, or 2)

lacks factual allegations sufficient to support a cognizable legal

theory. Balistreri v. Pacific Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9 Cir. th

1988).

If a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted, the “district court

should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleadings is

made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured

by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127

(9 Cir. 2000) (quotation and citation omitted). th

II. 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant’s motion includes a request that the Court take

judicial notice of a number of publically recorded documents. (Def.’s

Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss.) However, since

Defendant has not shown how these documents are relevant to its motion,

the request is denied.

Case 2:10-cv-01435-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 07/21/10 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

III. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed a “Complaint for Breach of Contract and

Negligence; and for Temporary Retraining Order; and an Order for

Preliminary Injunction” in the Placer County Superior Court on June 11,

2009. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), Ex. A, 1.) Plaintiffs named

Defendant as Doe No. 2, and served Defendant with their Complaint on May

11, 2010. (Mot. 3:1-2.) Defendant subsequently removed the state court

action to this Court on June 10, 2010, on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. (Docket No. 2.) 

IV. DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint arguing, 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not make any allegations

against [it] whatsoever (whether in its own name or

as a ‘Doe’) nor does it seek relief from

[Defendant]; therefore, it is impossible to

ascertain why Plaintiffs have included [Defendant]

in this action.

....

[T]he sole allegations are as to the alleged wrongs

by [Defendant CTX Mortgage Co.] Thus, there is no

viable claim against [Defendant], and the Complaint

is fatally uncertain. 

(Mot. 4:8-12, 4:17-19.)

Plaintiffs have not alleged any conduct by Defendant.

Therefore, the Complaint does not give Defendant fair notice of

Plaintiffs’ claims, and Defendant’s dismissal motion is granted. See

Alkebu-Lan v. Kane, No. C 06-5991 CW, 2009 WL 1578722, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

June 4, 2009). Since all claims against Defendant are dismissed,

Defendants’ alternative motions to strike and for a more definite

statement are denied as moot. 

Plaintiffs are granted fourteen (14) days from the date on

which this order is filed to file a First Amended Complaint. Further,

Case 2:10-cv-01435-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 07/21/10 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

Plaintiff(s) are notified that the action may be dismissed with

prejudice as to Defendant Fortress Investment Group, LLC under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if Plaintiffs fail to file an amended

complaint within the prescribed time period.

Dated: July 20, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-01435-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 07/21/10 Page 4 of 4