cause of the challenged cause of action, takenas action,taken astrue, together true,together withinferences with inferences
reasonably reasonably drawn drawn fromit,it,does from entitle notentitle does not Plaintiffs Plaintiffs to therelief tothe sought reliefsought Silverado asSilverado as doesnot does not oweaa dutyof owe and/or ffiduciary trust and/or duty of trust iduciarydduty to Plaintiffs. utyto TEx. R.CIV. Plaintiffs. TEX. Plaintiffs Fourth P. 91a. Plaintiffs R. Civ. P.9la. Fourth
Amended Original Amended Original Petition Petition failstosetouteven fails threadbare to set out even aa threadbare recitation recitation ofelements of forthe elements for the
of action causeof cause allegedor actionalleged attemptto evenattempt or even fair notice to satisfy fair noticerequirements or meet requirements or facial meetaa facial
plausibility plausibility standard. standard. 566U.S. Ashcroft, 566 att 678-79; U.S. a 678-79; FED. P. 12(b)(6). To establish R. Civ.P.l2(b)(6).To FED.R. establish aa
breachof breach trustand/or of trust fiduciary and/orfiduciary duty, Plaintiffs duty,Plaintiffs would firsthaveto would fiduciary proveaafiduciary first have to prove
relationship existedbetween relationship existed Silverado betweenSilverado and themselves. Lundy andthemselves. Lundy v. v. Masson, 260 S.W.3d, 482, 260S.W.3d, 482,
Dist.]2008,pet. denied).ThenPlaintiffs wouldhave have aa 501 (Tex.App. 501 (Tex. - Houston App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). Then Plaintiffs would
burden burden prove tthat ttooprove hatSilverado Silveradobreached breached dutywithin aaduty within tthe scope o hescope the underlying fiduciary offtheunderlying fiduciary
relationship them.JJoe betweenthem. relationship between oe v. v. Two Thirty NineJt. TwoThirty 145S.W.3d Nine Jt. V, 145 150,159-60 S.W.3d 150, (Tex. 159-60 (Tex.
2004).However, 2004). However,Plaintiffs Plaintiffs failed failed allege toallege to factual anyfactual any allegations allegations whichwould which wouldsupport support aa
fiduciary fiduciary relationship relationship and/or and/or relationship relationship of trust a oftrust ndconfidence and existed b confidence existed etween between Silverado Silverado
andthemselves and themselves such dutywould thataaduty suchthat would arise support the arisettoosupport cause o the cause action lloosely offaction oosely alleged. I9
Threadbare Threadbare recitals recitals supported supported byconclusory by allegations conclusory allegations do do not satisfy notsatisfy facial plausibility facialplausibility standards. standards. 550U.S. Twombly, 550 U.S. a 570; Ashcroft, 566U.S. att 570; 566 U.S. at 678-79;FED.R.CIV.P.l2(b)(6). at 678-79; FED. R. M. P. 12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs breach Plaintiffs breach oftrust of and/or trustand/or breach breach offiduciary of dutycause fiduciary duty ofaction causeof hasnobasis action has no inlaw basis in law
andmust R. P.9la. bedismissed. TEX. and must be dismissed. TEX. R. Civ. P. 91a.
SeeOrder See Granting Order Granting Authority Authority forGuardian AdLitemtoExecute AdLitem&Attomey for Guardian Ad Litem & Attorney Ad Litem to Execute Peterson Peterson R ule11Agreement Rule ExhibitA, at Exhibit 11 Agreement at A,¶2. Plaintiffs' SeePlaintiffs' See Fourth FourthAmended Petition. Original Amended Original Petition.
4835-7047-5552.1 4835-7047-5552.1
Silverado Appx. 0418 No. 1-15-567-CV 1504 I
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
21.Plaintiffs' 21. breach Plaintiffs' breach oftrust of and/or trustand/or breach breach offiduciary of dutycause fiduciary duty causeofaction of hasno action has nobasis inlaw basisin law factand orfact or andmust bedismissed. mustbe TEX. dismissed. TEX. P. 91a. The challenged R. Civ.P.9la.The R.CIV. cause o challenged cause action, taken offaction, taken a ass
togetherwith true, together withinferences reasonably inferences reasonably ddrawn rawnfromit,doesnot entitlePlaintiffs from it, does not entitle Plaintiffs to