Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Haarslev, Inc.’s First Amended Complaint. The court allowed Haarslev’s fraud and unjust enrichment claims to proceed, but dismissed its tortious interference with business expectancy claim without leave to amend. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
Holdings
- The fraud claim could be included in the First Amended Complaint because the prior order granted leave to amend without limiting the amendment to particular deficiencies. Haarslev adequately pleaded the elements of Idaho fraud and alleged the circumstances of the alleged fraud with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b).
- Haarslev failed to state a plausible claim for intentional interference with business expectancy because it did not identify a valid business expectancy that was terminated or facts showing Defendants intentionally induced termination through conduct wrongful beyond the alleged interference itself.
- Haarslev plausibly stated an unjust enrichment claim even though CMI and IME directly conferred the alleged benefits on Defendants, because Haarslev alleged that Defendants' own fraudulent and misleading conduct caused the payments and conferred the benefits.
- Further amendment of the tortious interference with business expectancy claim would be futile, so Count Two was dismissed without leave to amend.
Questions Presented
- Whether Haarslev's newly added fraud claim was procedurally permissible and plausibly pleaded with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
- Whether Haarslev plausibly pleaded intentional interference with a prospective business expectancy under Idaho law.
- Whether Haarslev plausibly pleaded unjust enrichment where CMI and IME, rather than Haarslev directly, paid or conferred the alleged benefits on Defendants.
- Whether further leave to amend the tortious interference claim would be futile.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (21)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
- Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969, 972 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Diaz v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Loc. 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Aspiazu v. Mortimer, 82 P.3d 830, 832 (Idaho 2003)(followed)
- Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Temperance Ins. Exch. v. Coburn, 379 P.2d 1024, 1026 (Idaho 1963)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 21.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…