Aloudi v. Intramedic Research Group, LLC

Filing 51

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 42 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALHARETH ALOUDI,

Case No. 15-cv-00882-HSG

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

INTRAMEDIC RESEARCH GROUP, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. No. 42

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff Alhareth Aloudi filed a class action complaint on behalf of

14

a putative nationwide class, alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),

15

Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and False Advertising Law (“FAL”), as well as

16

violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), breach of express warranty, and

17

breach of implied warranty. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s claims are based on Defendant Intramedic

18

Research Group, LLC’s advertising representations regarding its JavaSLIM Green Coffee Extract

19

supplement (“Product”).

20

On July 9, 2015, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. No.

21

33. The Court dismissed with prejudice those claims that were based on allegations of a lack of

22

substantiation and dismissed with leave to amend those claims based on allegations of falsity. Id.

23

at 9. On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging the same

24

causes of action that were alleged in the complaint. Dkt. No. 34.

25

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss the FAC. The Court finds that

26

the FAC did not cure the defects identified in the original complaint, as discussed at length in the

27

July 9 Order. Plaintiff continues to impermissibly assert claims based on a lack of substantiation.

28

Additionally, the allegations in the FAC still do not adequately explain why Defendant’s Product

1
2

representations are false.
However, at the November 12, 2015 motion hearing, Plaintiff relied on numerous facts not

3

alleged in the FAC to argue that Defendant’s Product representations are false. While Plaintiff

4

failed to explain why such facts were not included as part of the first round of amendments, the

5

Court finds that further amendment of the complaint would not be “futile” and therefore dismisses

6

the FAC with leave to amend. See Deveraturda v. Globe Aviation Sec. Servs., 454 F.3d 1043,

7

1049 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that leave to amend may be properly denied where amendment

8

would be futile).

9

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this order. The

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court cautions Plaintiff that this will be his final opportunity to amend; accordingly, Plaintiff must

12

allege with specificity all facts he claims support his contention that Defendant’s Product

13

representations are false. The Court will not consider any extrinsic facts when assessing the

14

sufficiency of the amended complaint.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: November 13, 2015

17
________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2