Madill v. T-Mobile West LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Montana granted T-Mobile West LLC’s motion to dismiss Counts 3, 4, and 5 of the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The court held that the motion was timely and that the claims for deceit, constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s particularity requirement. The claims were dismissed with prejudice, and T-Mobile was given 14 days to answer the remaining claims.

Holdings

1. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion may be filed after an earlier answer when the amended complaint alleges new matter or changes the theory or scope of the case, including when it repleads claims previously dismissed and adds facts intended to cure prior pleading deficiencies.
2. A complaint asserting fraud-based claims must identify with particularity the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct, what was false or misleading about the statements, and why the statements were false or misleading when made.
3. Allegations that a defendant failed to perform a contractual obligation, or should have known that work would not proceed as planned, do not by themselves plead deceit, negligent misrepresentation, or constructive fraud with Rule 9(b) particularity.
4. Further leave to amend may be denied as futile when the plaintiff has had multiple opportunities, including discovery, to plead sufficient facts and the amended pleading remains repetitive, generalized, and conclusory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether T-Mobile's Rule 12(b)(6) motion was timely after Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint following dismissal of Counts 3 through 5 and leave to amend.
2. Whether the First Amended Complaint pleaded deceit, constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
3. Whether Plaintiffs should receive a further opportunity to amend their fraud-based claims.

Disposition

dismissed