Armstrong et al v. D.R. Horton Incorporated et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting 16 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : of Plaintifs Adeniji-Onasanwo, Beatty, Caggiano, Cutchon, Fornabai, Moran, and Payne Pursuant to the Statute of Repose 12-552, and Claims of all Punative Class Members Similarly Situated to the extent that Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by June 7, 2013. Dated this Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 5/23/13. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Scott Armstrong, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs, 10 11 ORDER vs. 12 No. CV-13-00239-PHX-NVW D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is Defendants D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton, Inc.-Dietz 15 Crane’s Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Adeniji-Onasanwo, Beatty, Caggiano, 16 Cutchon, Fornabai, Moran, and Payne Pursuant to the Statute of Repose, § 12-552 (Doc. 17 16). 18 To decide a motion to dismiss, “[a] court may consider evidence on which the 19 complaint ‘necessarily relies’ if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the 20 document is central to the plaintiff’s claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of 21 the copy attached to the 12(b)(6) motion.” Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 22 2006). Both sides have submitted exhibits (Docs. 16-1, 46-1) that do not satisfy the 23 foregoing conditions and which the Court does not consider in deciding Defendants’ 24 motion to dismiss. 25 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “‘a short and 26 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to 27 ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 28 rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 1 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957)). A claim must be stated clearly enough to provide 2 each defendant fair opportunity to frame a responsive pleading. McHenry v. Renne, 84 3 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996). “Something labeled a complaint . . ., yet without 4 simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails 5 to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” Id. at 1180. 6 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 36) does not include the factual 7 allegations necessary to determine whether any claims are barred by Arizona’s 8 construction defect statute of repose, A.R.S. § 12-552. Because leave to amend should be 9 freely given “when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiffs will be granted 10 leave to file a further amended complaint. 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. 12 Horton, Inc.-Dietz Crane’s Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Adeniji-Onasanwo, 13 Beatty, Caggiano, Cutchon, Fornabai, Moran, and Payne Pursuant to the Statute of 14 Repose, § 12-552 (Doc. 16) is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 15 Complaint (Doc. 36) is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 16 17 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by June 7, 2013. Dated this 23rd day of May, 2013. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2 

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?