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)

Download PDF
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

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?