High v. The Choice Manufacturing Company, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 32 Defendant Mepco Finance Corporation's Motion to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JACKIE L. HIGH,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-5478 EMC

Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
MEPCO FINANCE CORPORATION’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
THE CHOICE MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, et al.,

(Docket No. 32)

12
Defendants.
13
___________________________________/
14
15

Defendant Mepco Finance Corporation motion for dismissal of Plaintiff Jackie L. High’s

16

complaint for failure to state a claim came on for hearing before the Court on April 6, 2012. Docket

17

No. 32. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

18

First, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to identify a contractual relationship between

19

Defendant Mepco and Plaintiff or a contractual obligation owed to Plaintiff that Defendant Mepco

20

breached.1 Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and breach of

21

the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as to Defendant Mepco.

22

Second, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead claims under California Business &

23

Professions Code § 17200 and § 17500, as Plaintiff has not yet alleged that Defendant Mepco had

24

knowledge of a material fact that it concealed from Plaintiff. At most, Plaintiff alleges that

25

Defendant Mepco knew that U.S. Fidelis was bankrupt, but does not explain why this fact was

26
27
28

1

The Court declines to take judicial notice of either contract submitted by the parties, as the
parties dispute the authenticity of the documents.

1

material. Compl. ¶ 24. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims for false advertising and

2

unfair competition as to Defendant Mepco.

3

The Court GRANTS Defendant Mepco’s motion to dismiss the claims against Defendant

4

Mepco. Plaintiff is given leave to amend her complaint accordingly. Plaintiff shall file an amended

5

complaint within 30 days of this order.

6

This order disposes of Docket No. 32.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: April 10, 2012

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2