Andrea Pizziconi v. Norman Gray, Sherman 695, LLC, Carlton Highsmith, Dmitry Kravtsoz, A. Donald Janezic, Maria Gray, Tyler Floyd, Vanessa Research Holdings, Inc., Lorna Gray, and Trevira Boatright

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Andrea Pizziconi’s motion to dismiss Norman Gray’s pro se counterclaim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). The court held that the counterclaim failed to identify a cognizable cause of action and, to the extent it alleged fraud, failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement. The court also dismissed claims seeking relief on behalf of Vanessa Research Holdings, Inc., denied leave to amend as futile, and denied Gray’s motion for summary judgment as moot.

Holdings

1. The counterclaim failed to comply with Rule 8(a) because it did not identify any statutory or common-law cause of action and consisted primarily of conclusory, irrelevant, and confusing allegations that did not provide fair notice of a legally cognizable claim.
2. The counterclaim failed to plead fraud with particularity because it did not adequately specify the allegedly fraudulent statements, identify when and where they were made, identify the speaker, or explain why the statements were false.
3. Gray could not proceed pro se on claims belonging to Vanessa Research or recover personally for injuries allegedly suffered by the corporation.
4. Leave to amend was denied because amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Gray's counterclaim stated a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
2. Whether the counterclaim stated a fraud claim with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
3. Whether Gray could assert claims or recover damages on behalf of Vanessa Research Holdings, Inc. while proceeding pro se.
4. Whether Gray should be granted leave to amend the counterclaim.

Disposition

dismissed