Geoghegan et al v. Monessen Hearth Systems Co. et al

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 29 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
JOSEPH GEOGHEGAN, et al.
6
Plaintiff(s),

No. C 12-2896 PJH

7
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

8
MONESSEN HEARTH SYSTEMS, et al.
9
10

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

11

Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint came on for hearing before this

12

court on February 27, 2013. Plaintiffs Joseph Geoghegan (individually and as father and

13

next friend of Declan Geoghegan) and Tara Geoghegan did not appear at the hearing.

14

Defendants CFM Majestic U.S. Holdings, Inc. and CFM U.S. Corp. (“defendants”) appeared

15

through their counsel, Dana Ulise. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the

16

motion and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good

17

cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion, for the reasons stated at

18

the hearing, and summarized as follows.

19

In their opposition brief, plaintiffs concede that their individual claims are time-

20

barred, and state their intention to proceed only as to the claims brought on behalf of

21

Declan Geoghegan. Thus, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ individual claims is

22

GRANTED, and those claims are dismissed with prejudice.

23

Defendants also move to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. Defendants

24

argue that, in order to pursue a punitive damages claim against a corporate entity, plaintiffs

25

must allege that fraud, oppression, or malice was undertaken, authorized, or ratified by an

26

officer, director, or manager of defendants. The court finds that plaintiffs have not so

27

alleged, and therefore GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss. However, to the extent that

28

defendants seek dismissal with prejudice, their motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall have

1

1

an opportunity to amend the complaint to allege facts sufficient to establish a claim for

2

punitive damages. Plaintiffs shall have until March 22, 2013 to file an amended complaint

3

in accordance with this order. No new claims or parties may be added without leave of

4

court or the stipulation of all parties. Defendants’ response is due no later than 21 days

5

after plaintiffs’ amended complaint is filed.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
Dated: March 1, 2013
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge