Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pamela Lance, Doing Business As National v. Leslie Jean Adams

May 6, 2011

PAMELA LANCE, DOING BUSINESS AS NATIONAL DESALINATION WATER SYSTEMS, CONROY GOODEN, AND FLORENCE E. MASON,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
LESLIE JEAN ADAMS, NATALIE GARY, CORNELL J. PRICE AND EQUITIES FIRST HOLDINGS, LLC,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Document 1)

INTRODUCTION

On February 25, 2011, Plaintiffs Pamela Lance doing business as National Desalination Water Systems, Conroy Gooden and Florence E. Mason, filed a pleading entitled "Demand for Injunction Claim Against Unauthorize[d] Use, Sale or Transfer of Jewish Colonial Stock" in this Court. (See Doc. 1.) The Court construes the pleading to be a complaint for it references "violations for Breach of Contract, Concealing of Stocks, willful violations of the Securities Act of 1933, deprivation of rights, [and] theft of earned wages . . .." (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) Plaintiffs seek relief by way of an "emergency injunction." More particularly, for example, Plaintiffs seek "an Order of this Court to the Bank of America to release the Stocks held in their safe deposit box," to enjoin the Defendants "from attempting to sell, re-negotiate and secure any other funding sources without the knowledge of" Plaintiffs, and that Defendant Adams be required to "surrender all rights and possession of the . . . 'JCT' Stock currently held by Bank of America." (Doc. 1 at 7-10.) It also appears Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, "attorney-in-fact" fees, and costs. (Doc. 1 at 7-10.)

FACTUAL SUMMARY

Plaintiffs provide a "history and facts of the case" at pages two through six of their complaint. While the complaint appears to present a chronological story of sorts, it is confusing. Generally speaking, it appears that Plaintiff Pamela Lance and Defendant Leslie Jean Adams entered into a written agreement entitled "Joint Venture Participation Agreement" on or about December 4, 2010.*fn1 The agreement provided that Defendant Adams was to "make available Funds of a value of Four Billion United States Dollars" that were to be "used as Collateral in trading transactions to raise profit and project funding" for a "Humanitarian Platform." (Doc. 1 at 2-3, 12.)

Thereafter, Plaintiffs Gooden and Mason became involved - apparently to provide private funding in order to "monetize the 'JCT' stock." "JCT" refers to "Jewish Colonial Trust" stock owned by Defendant Adams. Before the transaction between Plaintiffs and Defendant Adams could conclude however, Adams apparently decided she no longer wished to work with the Plaintiffs. (Doc. 1 at 3-5.)

While it is far from clear, apparently Defendants Natalie Gary and Cornell J. Price became involved shortly thereafter, to the exclusion of any rights held by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert Defendants Adams, Gary and Price "conspired to sabatage [sic] the dea[l]." (Doc. 1 at 5.) Apparently Defendant Price acted as a "closing attorney" to assist Defendant Adams in concluding "the deal," with unnamed third parties. (Doc. 1 at 5-6.) Defendant Gary is identified as a "bank representative." (Doc. 1 at 5.) Notably, although Equities First Holdings, LLC is named as a defendant in the caption, there is no mention of this entity in the facts and/or body of the complaint or its purported wrongdoing.

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

"Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid," the Court shall dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See also Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Id. at 1949.

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend would be futile. Lopez, at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id.

B. Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs' complaint asserts this Court's jurisdiction arises under Title 28 of the United States Code section 1331, which provides as follows: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Plaintiffs' complaint vaguely references "Federal and State laws regarding fraudulent security transfers and deceptive, unsavory business practices." (See Doc. 1 at 1.) Nevertheless, Plaintiffs' complaint fails to specifically identify what federal laws have been violated. Plaintiffs' reference to "the Securities Act of 1933" is insufficient for Plaintiffs fail to reference any section of the Act with particularity. (See Doc. 1 at 2.) It is not the Court's responsibility to guess at Plaintiffs intended claims. Additionally, Plaintiffs' complaint asserts a "deprivation of rights," but fails to identify which rights have allegedly been violated. (See Doc. 1 at 2.) Again, it is Plaintiffs' responsibility to plainly identify which of their rights have been violated. Similarly too, Plaintiffs vague references to the "Federal Trade Commission" or the "FCC" and its "rules" or "ordinances" is also insufficient. (See Doc. 1 at7-8.)

Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend their complaint to specifically identify those federal and/or state laws that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.