Clayton v. Automated Gaming Technologies, Inc.
Filing
142
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/11/2014. Court is GRANTING, without leave to amend, plaintiff's 113 Motion to Dismiss to Dismiss Second Cause of Action for fraud in Second Amended Counterclaim. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
KEITH R. CLAYTON,
13
14
15
16
No.
2:13-cv-00907-JAM-EFB
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
AND COUNTER DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
AUTOMATED GAMING TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Nevada corporation, JOHN
R. PRATHER, and ROBERT MAGNANTI,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
AUTOMATED GAMING TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Nevada corporation,
Counter-Claimant,
21
22
23
24
v.
KEITH R. CLAYTON, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
Counter-Defendants.
25
26
27
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff and CounterDefendant Keith Clayton’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
28
1
1
#113) Defendant and Counter-Claimant Automated Gaming
2
Technologies, Inc.’s (“AGT”) Second Amended Counterclaim (Doc.
3
#110) (“SAC”).
4
filed a reply (Doc. #124).
5
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
AGT opposes the motion (Doc. #123).
Plaintiff
For the reasons set forth below,
6
7
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8
The factual allegations underlying the parties’ respective
9
claims are well known to all litigants and will not be repeated
10
in detail here.
11
counterclaims arise out of a series of negotiations between the
12
parties regarding two iterations of an employment agreement, an
13
alleged sales contract regarding software allegedly produced by
14
Plaintiff, and the ensuing employment relationship between the
15
parties.
16
In summary, Plaintiff’s suit and AGT’s
AGT’s original counterclaim (Doc. #34), filed on July 30,
17
2013, alleged four claims against Plaintiff.
18
the first three claims (Doc. #59): breach of contract, breach of
19
duty of loyalty, and negligence, with leave to amend.
20
dismissed the final claim of negligent interference with economic
21
relations with prejudice.
The Court dismissed
The Court
22
AGT filed the First Amended Counterclaim (Doc. #69) on
23
January 6, 2014, alleging claims for breach of contract, fraud,
24
and breach of fiduciary duties.
25
action for fraud with leave to amend, dismissed the claim for
26
breach of contract with prejudice, and denied the motion to
27
dismiss the claim for breach of fiduciary duties (Doc. #106).
28
The Court dismissed the cause of
AGT filed the SAC on May 8, 2014.
2
It states two causes of
1
action against Plaintiff: (1) breach of fiduciary duties and
2
(2) fraud.
3
claim.
The present motion seeks dismissal of the fraud
4
5
6
II.
OPINION
As the Court held in an earlier order (Doc. #59), the claims
7
emanating from the employment relationship between the parties
8
are governed by Nevada state law because of the Nevada choice of
9
law provision in the Employment Agreement and the contract’s
10
substantial relationship to Nevada.
11
elements of fraud are: (1) a false representation made by the
12
defendant; (2) defendant’s knowledge or belief that the
13
representation is false (or is insufficient basis for making the
14
representation); (3) defendant’s intention to induce the
15
plaintiff to act or to refrain from acting in reliance upon the
16
misrepresentation; (4) plaintiff’s justifiable reliance upon the
17
misrepresentation; and (5) damage to the plaintiff resulting from
18
such reliance.
19
(Nev. 1992).
20
A.
21
Plaintiff first argues that the “no reliance” clause found
According to Nevada law, the
Bulbman Inc. v. Nevada Bell, 825 P.2d 588, 592
No-Reliance Clause
22
in the original Employment Agreement between the parties negates
23
the element of justifiable reliance.
24
25
26
27
28
In a section entitled “Contract Terms are Exclusive,” the
relevant text of the Employment Agreement reads:
The parties agree that neither of them has made any
representations with respect to the subject matter of
this agreement or any representations inducing the
execution and deliver hereof except such
representations as are specifically set forth herein.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
Each party acknowledges that each party has relied on
his or its own judgment in entering into this
agreement. The parties further acknowledge that any
statements or representations that may have heretofore
been made by either of them to the other are void and
of no effect and that neither of them has relied
thereon in connection with his or its dealings with the
other.
SAC, Exh. A at p. 17.
7
According to Nevada law, “a fraudulent inducement claim
8
fails as a matter of law where it directly contradicts the terms
9
of an express written contract.”
Soffer v. Five Mile Capital
10
Partners, LLC, 2:12-CV-1407 JCM GWF, 2013 WL 638832, at *9 (D.
11
Nev. 2013); see also Rd. & Highway Builders, LLC v. N. Nev.
12
Rebar, Inc., 284 P.3d 377, 378 (Nev. 2012).
13
directly contrary to the language of the integrated contract.
14
AGT’s claim is
The cause of action for fraud relies on representations made
15
by Plaintiff before the contract was formed, specifically
16
alleging that those representations led AGT to enter into the
17
agreement.
18
contradict the allegations in support of this claim, in that
19
AGT agreed that any representations made previously were “void
20
and of no effect” and that it would not rely on them specifically
21
“in connection with . . . its dealings with” Plaintiff.
22
therefore promised not to rely on Plaintiff’s representations
23
concerning the parties’ employment relationship, yet alleges in
24
its SAC that it did in fact rely on Plaintiff’s representations.
25
This “necessarily implies that, to the extent it did rely on
26
[Plaintiff], [AGT’s] reliance was not justifiable.”
27
West v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona, 41 F.3d 471, 477-78 (9th
28
Cir. 1994).
The terms of the contract, however, explicitly
4
AGT
Bank of the
1
AGT argues that the existence of this clause does not
2
preclude its fraud claim, pointing to Nevada cases that allowed a
3
party to present evidence of fraud regardless of an integration
4
clause.
5
Both parties make note that there is no controlling Nevada
6
authority that specifically addresses the preclusive effect of a
7
“no reliance” clause on a claim for fraudulent inducement.
8
However, when claims directly contradict terms considered and
9
explicitly addressed in a contract, the law will not allow a
See Blanchard v. Blanchard, 108 Nev. 908, 912 (1992).
10
party to attempt to prove fraudulent inducement.
11
Highway Builders, 284 P.3d at 380-81.
12
contract was the employment relationship between the parties.
13
The contract exhibits a very clear agreement as to what the
14
parties were to rely upon in entering into that relationship.
15
See Rd. &
The subject of the
AGT’s alleged reliance is particularly questionable here,
16
given that AGT was a sophisticated party to the contract, the
17
party extending the offer to Plaintiff (in an agreement printed
18
on AGT letterhead), and was the party that presumably drafted the
19
contract.
20
v. Google Inc., 05:11-CV-1263-JF, 2011 WL 3501403, at *8-9 (N.D.
21
Cal. 2011); Insitu Inc. v. Kent, 388 F. App'x 745, 746 (9th Cir.
22
2010) (finding the plaintiff could not show reasonable reliance
23
given the “no reliance” clause and that he was “a sophisticated
24
businessman, was represented by counsel, had an adversarial
25
relationship with the company, and was allowed twenty-one days to
26
consider whether to sign the Agreement”).
27
28
See Rd. & Highway Builders, 284 P.3d at 380-81; Woods
AGT contends that even if the no reliance clause is
enforced, its claim for fraud also encompasses the
5
1
misrepresentations made by Plaintiff inducing AGT to enter into
2
the alleged software sales contract.
3
an affirmative claim for fraudulent inducement of an agreement it
4
alleges does not exist.
5
However, AGT cannot bring
See SAC ¶ 51.
As AGT has not sufficiently pled justifiable reliance, a
6
necessary element of its fraud cause of action, the Court GRANTS
7
Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss.
8
numerous iterations of AGT’s counterclaim that amendment would
9
cure the defects identified above.
10
It does not appear from the
As such, the Motion to
Dismiss is granted without leave to amend.
11
B.
Remaining Arguments
12
Plaintiff further argues AGT’s claim for fraud should be
13
dismissed because the SAC fails to meet the relevant pleading
14
standards and is barred by the economic loss doctrine.
15
also argues that if the Court does find the claim viable, it does
16
not in any event state facts sufficient to support the specific
17
demand for punitive damages.
18
based on application of the “no reliance” clause, the remaining
19
arguments need not be addressed.
Plaintiff
As the Court has granted the motion
20
III.
21
22
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT
23
LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Cause of
24
Action for fraud in the Second Amended Counterclaim.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: August 11, 2014
27
28
6
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?