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)
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?