Lee et al v. Yang et al

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/18/12 ORDERING 6 Motion to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's are granted ten days to file a Second Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies in the referenced claims against Great American. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

Nou Lee, Bor Pha,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10
11
12
13
14

v.
Yia Yang, Yia Yang d.b.a. Yia’s
Auto Sales, Yia Yang d.b.a.
Plantinum Financial, Yia’s Auto
Sales, Inc., Great American
Insurance Company,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-1580-GEB-DAD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS*

15

Defendant Great American Insurance Company (“Great American”)

16

moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for dismissal of

17

Plaintiffs’ claims alleged against it in the First Amended Complaint

18

(“FAC”). Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

19

Each Plaintiff alleges to have purchased a vehicle from

20

Defendant Yia’s Auto Sales under a sales contract which misrepresented

21

the annual percentage rate (FAC ¶¶ 18-20, 23-25); and that Defendants

22

engaged in “unlawful and deceptive practices . . . in the sale, and

23

financing of motor vehicles”

24

and arranging financing for the purchase of automobiles . . . without

25

providing purchasers with statutorily mandated disclosures concerning

26

the terms and conditions of credit.” (FAC ¶¶ 1-2.)

“based upon the . . . practice of selling

27
28

*

argument.

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1

1

Decision

on

a

Rule

12(b)(6)

dismissal

motion

requires

2

determination of “whether the complaint’s factual allegations, together

3

with all reasonable inferences, state a plausible claim for relief.”

4

Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th

5

Cir. 2011) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)). “A

6

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content

7

that

8

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

9

(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).

allows

the

court

to

draw

the

reasonable

inference

that

the

10

When determining the sufficiency of a claim, “[w]e accept

11

factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings

12

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party[; however, this

13

tenet does not apply to] . . . legal conclusions . . . cast in the form

14

of factual allegations.” Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.

15

2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Therefore,

16

conclusory

17

insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Id. (citation and internal

18

quotation marks omitted); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting

19

Twombly,

20

conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

21

action will not do.’”).

allegations

550

U.S.

at

of

555)

law

(“A

and

unwarranted

pleading

that

inferences

offers

‘labels

are

and

22

Great American argues that “the FAC makes no connection . . .

23

between the disputed transactions and Great American.” (Mot. to Dismiss

24

3:10-11.) Plaintiffs respond that Great American is liable “as a surety

25

insurer on a bond issued to [Defendant] Yang pursuant to California

26

Vehicle Code §§ 11710 and 11711.” (Opp’n 1:9-11.)

27
28

Plaintiffs FAC contains the following factual allegations
against Great American:
2

1

Defendant GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY . . . is
a corporation authorized to do business in the
State of California . . . and is the bonding agent
of YIA’s AUTO SALES, INC.

2
3

At the time of the acts and omissions complaint of
herein, Yia’s Auto Sales, as principal, and Great
American Insurance, as surety, duly executed a bond
in the sum of not less than $50,000, conditional on
the fact that Yia’s Auto Sales would not cause any
monetary loss to a purchaser. Plaintiffs are
beneficiaries of said bond by virtue of the conduct
complained of herein.

4
5
6
7
8

(FAC ¶¶ 9, 75.)

9

Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations against Great American do

10

not state plausible claims for relief. Therefore, Great American’s

11

dismissal motion is granted.

12

Plaintiffs are granted ten (10) days from the date on which

13

this order is filed to file a Second Amended Complaint addressing the

14

deficiencies in the referenced claims against Great American.

15

Dated:

September 18, 2012

16
17
18

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3