Parra v ADT Security Services, Inc.
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/29/2014 GRANTING 5 Motion to Dismiss; DISMISSING the Complaint WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STELLA PARRA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-01742-MCE-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
et al.
Defendants.
16
17
Presently before the Court is Defendant ADT Security Service, Inc.’s (“Defendant”
18
19
or “ADT”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Stella Parra’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint for failure to
20
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
21
Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Motion”).1 For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion is
22
GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
1
28
All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise noted.
1
BACKGROUND2
1
2
Plaintiff was Defendant’s customer and had an ADT security system installed in
3
4
her home. On October 5, 2011, Plaintiff’s security system alarm began to sound off
5
because the backup battery in the control panel drained or failed. Plaintiff telephoned
6
Defendant that day concerning the high-pitched alarm. Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s
7
customer service representative told Plaintiff the only way to turn the alarm off was to
8
disconnect the battery located in the control box, or to allow the battery powering the
9
alarm to drain down or go dead. Plaintiff alleges that she advised Defendant’s
10
representative that the control box and battery backup were in the attic and Plaintiff
11
would need a ladder to gain access. During the phone conversation, Defendant’s
12
representative told Plaintiff not to access the control panel using a ladder, but also
13
indicated there were no ADT service technicians in Plaintiff’s area to turn off her alarm.
14
According to Plaintiff, Defendant’s representative failed to advise Plaintiff that she could
15
have turned the alarm off using the control panel located in her home.
Plaintiff claims the high-pitched alarm made her home unlivable and she was
16
17
unable to avoid the noise by moving to a different area of her home. After being advised
18
by Defendant’s representative that the alarm could only be turned off from the control
19
box in her attic, Plaintiff attempted to access the control box using a ladder. Plaintiff fell
20
and sustained serious bodily injuries. On October 2, 2013, nearly two years after the
21
incident, Plaintiff initiated this action for negligence and strict products liability.
22
23
STANDARD
24
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), all
25
26
allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and construed in the light most
27
2
28
The following recitation of facts is taken, sometimes verbatim, from Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF
No. 1-3.
2
1
favorable to the moving party. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38
2
(9th Cir. 1996). Rule 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim
3
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of
4
what the…claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
5
550 U.S. 544, 550 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A
6
complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not require detailed factual
7
allegations. However, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to
8
relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
9
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
10
A court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion couched as a factual
11
allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
12
555). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
13
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
14
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004) (stating that the pleading must
15
contain something more than “a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a
16
legally cognizable right of action.”)).
17
Furthermore, “Rule 8(a)(2)…requires a showing, rather than a blanket assertion,
18
of entitlement to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 n.3 (internal citations and quotations
19
omitted). Thus, “[w]ithout some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how
20
a claimant could satisfy the requirements of providing not only ‘fair notice’ of the nature
21
of the claim, but also ‘grounds’ on which the claim rests.” Id. (citing 5 Charles Alan
22
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, supra, at § 1202). A pleading must contain “only enough facts
23
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. If the “plaintiffs…have
24
not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint
25
must be dismissed.” Id. However, “[a] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it
26
strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and ‘that a recovery
27
is very remote and unlikely.’” Id. at 556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
28
(1974)).
3
1
Although review of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is generally confined to the
2
complaint, the Court may consider documents referenced therein, but not attached to,
3
the complaint. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). A statute of
4
limitations defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss if the running of the statute is
5
apparent from the face of the complaint. See Ledesma v. Jack Stewart Produce, Inc.,
6
816 F.2d 482, 484 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987).
7
A court granting a motion to dismiss a complaint must decide whether to grant
8
leave to amend. Leave to amend should be “freely given” where there is no “undue
9
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,…undue prejudice to the
10
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of the
11
amendment….” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Eminent Capital, LLC v.
12
Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (listing the Foman factors as those to
13
be considered when deciding whether to grant leave to amend). Not all of these factors
14
merit equal weight. Rather, “the consideration of prejudice to the opposing
15
party…carries the greatest weight.” Id. (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d
16
183, 185 (9th Cir. 1987)). Dismissal without leave to amend is proper only if it is clear
17
that “the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Intri-Plex Techs. v. Crest
18
Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d
19
1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2005); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th
20
Cir. 1989) (“Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the
21
complaint…constitutes an exercise in futility….”)).
22
23
ANALYSIS
24
25
Defendant argues that three separate bases warrant dismissal of the Complaint
26
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See ECF No. 5-2 at 1. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff
27
failed to abide by her contractual promise to file a lawsuit against Defendant within one
28
year of the date of any incident. Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s negligence
4
1
claim fails because Defendant had no common law duty to install and/or monitor
2
Plaintiff’s alarm system, or to advise her how to disable it. Finally, and in the alternative,
3
Defendant argues that Plaintiff is contractually limited to recover no more than $250.00
4
in damages.
5
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that her alarm services contract with Defendant is
6
void or voidable because it did not strictly conform with the provisions of the “Alarm
7
Company Act,” codified at California Business and Professions Code §§ 7590 et seq. In
8
the absence of an enforceable contract, argues Plaintiff, she has pled sufficient facts to
9
support her claims.
10
As an initial matter, Plaintiff failed to attach her contract with Defendant to the
11
Complaint; the contract was supplied by Defendant and attached to the Motion. ECF
12
No. 5-3 at 4-7. However, because Plaintiff refers to her contract with Defendant in the
13
Complaint, ECF No. 1-3 at 10, the Court will consider the contract when ruling on the
14
Motion. See Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1076.
15
A. Alarm Services Contract
16
1. The Alarm Services Contract Is Neither Void Nor Voidable
17
Defendant argues that although Plaintiff contracted with Defendant to install,
18
maintain, and monitor Plaintiff’s home alarm system, Plaintiff’s common law negligence
19
claim fails because there is no independent, common law duty to perform contractual
20
obligations under an alarm services contract. See ECF No. 5-2 at 9. While Plaintiff
21
refers to a service contract with Defendant in the Complaint, see ECF No. 5-3 at 11, and
22
does not dispute the authenticity of the contract attached to Defendant’s Motion, in her
23
Opposition Plaintiff argues the contract is void or voidable because it does not comply
24
with the provisions of the Alarm Company Act. See ECF No. 6 at 2. Defendant argues
25
that a violation of the Alarm Company Act does not result in a contract being void or
26
voidable, but rather that noncompliance may result in the issuance of a citation and fine.
27
See ECF No. 8 at 3 (citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7599.54).
28
///
5
1
The Alarm Company Act requires each agreement for installation of an alarm
2
system to contain a host of information and be in writing. See Cal. & Bus. Prof. Code
3
§ 7599.54. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s failure to include eleven mandatory
4
provisions required by the Alarm Company Act renders the contract void or voidable,
5
and thus Plaintiff is not bound by the contract’s statute of limitations and limitation of
6
damages provisions. The cases cited by Plaintiff in her Opposition do not support her
7
argument. In In re Mitchell’s Estate, 123 P.2d 503, 505 (Cal. 1942), for instance, the
8
court held that failure to include statutorily imposed mandatory language in a contract did
9
not render the contract void. Duffens v. Valenti, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 311, 326 (2008), also
10
relied on by Plaintiff, is distinguishable. There, the statute in question expressly stated
11
that a contract failing to satisfy its provisions was void and unenforceable. The Alarm
12
Company Act contains no such provision.
13
Moreover, as exemplified by Duffens, the California Legislature has demonstrated
14
its ability to render contracts void or voidable for non-compliance within a statute itself.
15
See also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6148(c) (“Failure to comply with any provision of this
16
section renders the agreement voidable at the option of the client, and the attorney shall,
17
upon the agreement being voided, be entitled to collect a reasonable fee”); Cal. Civ.
18
Code § 1694.4(a) (“Any contract for dating services which does not comply with this
19
chapter is void and unenforceable.”). Additionally, where a California statute makes
20
conduct illegal, by providing for a fine or other administrative discipline when the statute
21
is violated, the statute “excludes by implication the additional penalty involved in holding
22
the illegal contract unenforceable….” Lewis & Queen v. N.M. Ball Sons, 308 P.2d 713,
23
719 (Cal. 1957). Moreover, where California courts consider rendering such contracts
24
voidable, they assess whether “serious moral turpitude” is involved, whether penalties
25
are available, and whether unjust enrichment will occur if the contract is deemed
26
voidable. See Hinfedl-Ward, Inc. v. Lipian, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 237 (2010).
27
28
Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s technical violations of the Alarm Company
Act render the contract, which was entered into sixteen years prior to Plaintiff’s fall, void
6
1
or voidable, is unavailing. The violations were purely technical and there is no indication
2
Defendant exhibited any moral turpitude. Furthermore, Defendant would be subject to a
3
citation and fine based on the technical violations. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
4
§ 7599.54. Moreover, it can be inferred that if the Legislature wanted non-compliance
5
with the Alarm Company Act to render a contract void or voidable, it would have so
6
stated in the statute. Plaintiff’s contract with Defendant is neither void nor voidable and
7
thus is binding and enforceable in connection with this case.
8
9
2. Plaintiff’s Negligence Claim Fails for Lack of a Common Law Duty
In her Opposition, Plaintiff argues in the alternative that her negligence claim does
10
not arise out of any contractual relationship with Defendant because the contract "does
11
not include or state that any agreement was entered into for maintenance, service calls,
12
or ongoing customer service.” ECF No. 6 at 6. Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive.
13
The Complaint expressly alleges “that [Plaintiff]’s service contract with Defendant
14
included in-home service repairs for her security system that would have included
15
replacement of the backup battery in the control box.” ECF No. 5-3 at 11. Moreover, it
16
is clear from the contract itself that the parties contracted for service beyond installation
17
of the alarm system. ECF No. 5-3 at 4.
18
B. Statute of Limitations
19
Defendant argues that Plaintiff contractually agreed to bring any claims within one
20
year of an incident, and because Plaintiff filed the Complaint nearly two years after her
21
fall, the action should be dismissed. Under California law, courts generally enforce
22
agreements between parties to shorten a statutory limitations period if reasonable. See
23
Moreno v. Sanchez, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1415, 1430 (2003). The California Supreme
24
Court has held that “[i]t is a well-settled proposition of law that the parties to a contract
25
may stipulate therein for a period of limitation, shorter than that fixed by the statute of
26
limitations, and that such stipulation violates no principle of public policy, provided the
27
period fixed be not so unreasonable as to shop imposition or undue advantage in some
28
way.” Beeson v. Schloss, 192 P. 292, 294 (Cal. 1920) (citations omitted). California
7
1
courts typically uphold contractual provisions that shorten the statute of limitations where
2
straightforward contracts are involved and the breach of accrual of rights under the
3
contract is unambiguous. Charnay v. Cobert, 145 Cal. App. 4th 170, 183 (2006); see
4
Capeheart v. Heady, 206 Cal. App. 2d 386 (1962) (upholding contractual limitations
5
period of three months).
6
Here, Plaintiff’s contract with Defendant was straightforward and the cause of
7
action accrued when Plaintiff fell and sustained injury. Accordingly, the Court finds the
8
one-year statute of limitations provision in the contract is reasonable and enforceable.
9
Thus, the Complaint is dismissed because all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the
10
statute of limitations provision in the alarm services contract. Moreover, because any
11
amended complaint alleging a duty independent of the contract would necessarily
12
require Plaintiff to contradict previous allegations that she had a service contract with
13
Defendant, no leave to amend will be permitted.
14
15
CONCLUSION
16
17
18
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated: September 29, 2014
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?