Meyer v. Montessori Kingdom of Learning
Filing
63
ORDER denying 56 Second Motion for Leave to Amend Her Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties submit a proposed revised case management plan, or place a call to schedule a telephonic case management conference no later that December 13, 2013. (See document for full details). Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 11/19/13. (LAD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Julia Meyer,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
Montessori Kingdom of Learning,
13
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-12-1256-PHX-DKD
ORDER
14
15
This Order addresses Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Leave to Amend Her Amended
16
Complaint (Doc. 56).1 Plaintiff seeks to add Count Four which seeks to pierce the veil of the
17
corporate defendant and impose liability on the proposed individual defendants who are alleged
18
to be the only members of the corporate defendant. The Court previously authorized the filing
19
of the Second Amended Complaint on July 9, 2013.
20
Plaintiff’s Motion contends that amendment is warranted because
21
Plaintiff has recently discovered Defendant’s intent to file for Chapter 7
bankruptcy and throughout the course of those discussions Defendant has
disclosed certain information that Plaintiff believes would be grounds to pierce
the corporate veil and pursue both Ms. Rager and Ms. Schneider personally.
22
23
24
Motion at pp. 2-3. In addition, the proposed third amended complaint specifies
25
26
27
28
1
The request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and
oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141
F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).
1
2
3
4
5
6
13. Upon information and belief based on Defendant[‘]s recent proposed
bankruptcy disclosures, Suzanne Rager and Elizabeth Schneider failed to do the
following upon the inception of Montessori Kingdom of Learning, LLC and/or
failed to adhere to the following after its inception: (1) follow all corporate
formalities required for a limited liability company in Arizona; (2) did not have
proper funding for the limited liability company at its inception; (3) have
commingled their own personal funds and/or monies with those of the limited
liability company; and (4) they have used the limited liability company to
advance personal purposes.
Proposed Third Amended Complaint at p. 3.
7
To pierce the corporate veil, Plaintiff must plead facts that “allow[] the [C]ourt to draw
8
the reasonable inference” (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)),
9
that (1) the company is the “alter ego” of a person and (2) that observing the corporate form
10
would cause a “fraud or injustice.” See Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Ins. Co., 170 Ariz. 34,
11
39, 821 P.2d 725, 730 (1991). Plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint alleges facts (set
12
forth above) that the company was the alter ego of the named persons but the proposed third
13
amended complaint is completely silent as to whether observing the corporate form would cause
14
a fraud or injustice. Moreover, the “facts” in support of the alter ego status of the company as
15
set forth in the proposed third amended complaint and quoted above are the kind of conclusory
16
facts which were deemed insufficient to state a claim in Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at
17
1959-50. These are “legal conclusion[s] couched as [] factual allegation[s]”, Bell Atlantic Corp.
18
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007), which provide no basis for the
19
Court to do what Iqbal requires and make a determination that the claim is facially plausible.
20
Iqbal at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Given that the proposed amendment to the Second Amended
21
Complaint could not withstand a motion to dismiss, the proposed amendment is futile. As
22
Defendant points out, a possible bankruptcy which might potentially render a judgment
23
uncollectible is not sufficient to constitute fraud or injustice. In re BH S&B Holdings, LLC, 420
24
B.R. 112, 140 n.8 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).
25
The standard for granting leave to amend is generous, but it is not unlimited.
26
Considering the factors set forth in Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052
27
(9th Cir. 2003), and where Plaintiff has already had two opportunities to file amended complaints
28
-2-
1
and where the proposed third amended complaint does not plead a prima facie case for the claim
2
to be added, and in light of the fact that this case has been pending for nearly a year and a half,
3
the Court will decline to grant leave to amend.
4
The parties shall confer about a proposed revised case management plan and, if in
5
agreement, submit this plan to the Court for its consideration. If the parties are unable to agree,
6
then they shall contact the Court’s judicial assistant for the purpose of scheduling a telephonic
7
case management conference.
8
9
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Leave to
Amend Her Amended Complaint (Doc. 56).
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties submit a proposed revised case
11
management plan, or place a call to schedule a telephonic case management conference no later
12
that December 13, 2013.
13
DATED this 19th day of November, 2013.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?