The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
This action involves a dispute over alleged agreements to purchase heavy machinery.
Three separate individuals ("Plaintiffs") bring state law claims for breach of contract and common 19 counts. Defendant removed this action from Santa Clara County Superior Court on February 22, 2011. Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or, in 21 the alternative, motion for a more definite statement. The Court finds this matter suitable for 22 decision without oral argument. See Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing on this Motion, set for August 4, 2011, is hereby VACATED. For the reasons stated below, the motion to 24 dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend, and the motion for a more definite statement is
DENIED as moot. In light of the dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint, the August 4, 2011 case 26 management conference is continued to Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
Complaint against Defendant, Thomas Francis and Does 1-100, using form pleadings in California Plaintiffs' combined Complaint alleges six causes of actions under California law: three claims for breach of contract and three for common counts against Defendant. Id. Because the Complaint was filed on state pleading forms, which contain check boxes and limited spaces for factual allegations, the allegations are sparse. Plaintiffs allege that they each had a written contract with Defendant wherein Defendant agreed to purchase, on Plaintiffs' behalf, $13,000, $25,000, and
Plaintiffs, Jimmy J. McAfee, Mona Sutherland, and Jayna Sutherland, originally filed their Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on December 13, 2010. See Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A. $300,000, worth of heavy machinery. The written contracts are not attached to the Complaint. The 10 ovember 1, 2008, the Defendant "did not consummate Plaintiffs also each allege that on or about N 11 the purchase of specific items of heavy machinery," and thereby breached the alleged agreements.
Plaintiffs allege in their separate, but closely related, common counts claims that Defendant 13 became indebted to them sometime in the last four years for certain sums of money corresponding 14 to the alleged amounts of damages for breach of contract.
filed a motion requesting the Court to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or alternatively, to treat the motion as a motion 18 for a more definite statement, pursuant to Rule 12(e). See Dkt. No. 5. Plaintiffs have filed a short 19 opposition, which does not contest Defendant's motion on the merits, but instead requests leave to 20 amend or the granting of Defendant's alternative motion for a more definite statement.
there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable 25 legal theory." Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 606 F.3d 658, 664 (9th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). In considering whether the 27 complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009).
Shortly after Defendant removed the action to this Court on February 22, 2011, Defendant