Robertson et al v. Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc et al

Filing 25

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's estoppel claim; dismissing Defendant Peter Doder from this lawsuit without prejudice; dismissing without prejudice Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT) (Peter Doder terminated.)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6

ALAN ROBERTSON, et al.,
7

Plaintiff,

8
9

INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS,
INC., et al.,

10

MINUTE ORDER

Defendants.

11
12

C17-1233 TSZ

v.

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

(1)
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for Failure to State a
Claim for Relief Under Rule 12(b)(6), docket no. 16 (the “Motion”), is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. The Court is satisfied that the Amended Complaint, docket
no. 13, alleges facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for breach of implied agreement
and breach of the implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, see Amended Complaint
at ¶¶ 42–46. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, (2009). Plaintiffs have also stated
enough facts to reasonably infer that Plaintiffs were the procuring cause of the 110th
Business Court property transaction alleged in the Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 30–41. Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court DISMISSES without
prejudice Plaintiffs’ promissory estoppel claim. See Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 51–55.
Plaintiffs have not identified any “clear and definite” statement that manifests an intent to
act in a specified way such that Plaintiffs were justified in relying on that statement. 1 See
1

The Amended Complaint only identifies two alleged statements underlying Plaintiffs’
promissory estoppel claim. See Amended Complaint at ¶ 52. But Plaintiffs point to three
21
statements in their Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, docket no. 19, that they argue
support their promissory estoppel claim. See id. at 5 n.4. For the sake of clarity, the Court notes
22 that none of these statements constitute a “promise” under the standards discussed herein.

23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

1 Havens v. C & D Plastics, Inc., 124 Wash. 2d 158, 172, 876 P.2d 435 (1994); Lacey
Marketplace Assocs. II, LLC, v. United Farmers of Alberta Co-op. Ltd., Nos. C13–
2 0383JLR, C13–0384JLR, 2015 WL 403165, at *9 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2015). Thus,
Plaintiffs have not alleged a cognizable “promise” for purposes of establishing a prima
3 facie estoppel claim. See Klinke v. Famous Recipe Fried Chicken, Inc., 94 Wash.2d 255,
259, 616 P.2d 644 (1980). Furthermore, the alleged statements made by Defendant Peter
4 Doder to Plaintiffs were made as an agent on behalf of a disclosed principal. These
statements are therefore insufficient to individually bind Doder in contract under the facts
5 alleged in the Complaint. Rho Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 113 Wn.2d 561, 586, 782 P.2d
986 (1989). While Plaintiffs suggest that Doder could be liable in tort, see Amended
6 Complaint at ¶ 54, Plaintiffs do not assert any tort claim against Doder. Defendant Peter
Doder is therefore DISMISSED from this lawsuit without prejudice. Finally, the Court
7 DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs have not
alleged any cognizable legal theory in support of this relief and their request is therefore
8 implausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
9
10

(2)
record.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2018.

11
William M. McCool
Clerk

12
13

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2