Schwartz v. Cook et al

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING 34 MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
KRISTOPHER A. SCHWARTZ,

7

Case No. 15-cv-03347-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

9
ART COOK, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
On January 7, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant Bankers Trust Company

13
14

of South Dakota’s (“Bankers Trust” or “Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss. ECF 35. The Court has

15

considered the parties’ briefing and oral argument. For the reasons stated on the record and below,

16

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend.

17

Plaintiff fails to specify the precise actions that Bankers Trust, rather than the other

18

defendants, took in his allegations. See, e.g., Compl., ¶¶ 67-70. While a complaint need not

19

contain detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

20

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

21

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when

22

it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

23

alleged.” Id. Plaintiff’s complaint fails this standard1 because the allegations of wrongdoing apply

24

to “[a]ll of the Defendants—including Buckles-Smith, the Individual Defendants, [Bankers Trust]

25

and John Doe Defendants.” Compl. ¶ 69. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss

26
27
28

1

The parties dispute whether the pleading standard of Rule 9(b) applies. Because the Court finds
that the allegations do not meet the standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal, it does not reach that
issue.

1
2

with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or before February 8, 2016.
At the hearing, Plaintiff noted that access to the Service Agreement would aid him in

3

making allegations with the requisite specificity. Bankers Trust objects to disclosing the

4

agreement due to confidentiality concerns. The Court DIRECTS the parties to meet and confer on

5

this issue, including the possibility of entering into a protective order.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: January 7, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2