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.

Bond Safeguard Insurance Co. v. Kramer

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 9, 2015

BOND SAFEGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE KRAMER and DEBORAH SWEANEY, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GEORGE KRAMER'S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Bond Safeguard Insurance Company ("Plaintiff") issued bonds for which Defendant George Kramer ("Defendant") owes money. Plaintiff brings this suit against Defendant and his sister alleging a fraudulent scheme to avoid payment. Because Plaintiff's allegations are sufficiently detailed, the Court DENIES Defendant's partial motion to dismiss.[1]

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2005, Defendant assisted the company Jimmy Camp Development, Inc. in acquiring bonds from Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 12. When the company defaulted on the bonds, it entered into an agreement with Plaintiff and Defendant, which made Defendant liable for over $64, 000 in unpaid premiums. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 23. Defendant failed to pay in full. Compl. ¶ 22. Plaintiff then sought to collect on this debt by placing a lien on Defendant's house. Compl. ¶ 73.

Meanwhile, Defendant and his sister, Deborah Sweaney ("Sweaney"), allegedly concocted a scheme to let Defendant escape liability. Compl. ¶ 54. The two created a deed of trust purporting to make Sweaney the senior lienholder on the home. See Compl. ¶¶ 55, 57, 73. Plaintiff alleges the deed was "a nullity and should be voided" because the note purportedly securing the deed never existed. Compl. ¶¶ 58, 61.

Plaintiff sued Defendant and Sweaney, alleging (1) breach of an indemnity agreement, (2) "Premiums - Open Account, " (3) unjust enrichment, (4) "Implied Contract, " (5) fraudulent transfers, and (6)[2] "Conspiracy." Sweaney answered (Doc. #8), and her brother filed this partial motion to dismiss the sixth and seventh claims only (Doc. #14). Plaintiff opposes the motion (Doc. #15).

II. OPINION

A. Discussion

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)

Defendant argues that the Court must dismiss the sixth and seventh causes of action because the allegations do not meet the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Mot. at 3-4. Defendant asserts that the complaint is deficient because it does not describe the "specific circumstances" in which Sweaney stated that the promissory note "never existed." Mot. at 4:4-9; see Compl. ¶ 59. In response, Plaintiff first argues that Rule 9(b) does not govern claims for "constructive" fraudulent conveyance. Opp. at 3.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires a plaintiff to plead allegations of fraud with particularity, including the "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." This pleading standard applies to causes of action that "sound in fraud." Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff here brings the sixth claim under California's Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act. See Compl. ¶ 76. But the complaint does not identify which part of that Act Defendant allegedly violated. The allegations under the sixth claim invoke language from two parts of the Act: California Civil Code section 3439.04 and section 3439.05. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 62 (using language from section 3439.04(a)(1)); id. ¶ 71 (using language from section 3439.05). Rule 9(b) applies to section 3439.04 but not to section 3439.05. See Kelleher v. Kelleher, 2014 WL 94197, at *5-*6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014); Sunnyside Dev. Co. LLC v. Cambridge Display Tech. Ltd., 2008 WL 4450328, at *6, *8, *9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008). Thus, to the extent the allegations support a claim under section 3439.04, the Court applies Rule 9(b).

Plaintiff next argues that even if Rule 9(b) applies, the allegation about Sweaney's statement is "evidentiary material that did not need to be plead [sic]." Opp. at 4:26-27.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff's sixth cause of action is pled with adequate specificity under Rule 9(b) even absent the challenged allegation. Defendant asks the Court to throw out the entire claim because Plaintiff did not specify the circumstances of Sweaney's alleged statement. But Sweaney's statement was not part of the purported fraud; under the complaint's facts, the fraud occurred when Defendant and Sweaney created a fraudulent deed of trust intending to make Sweaney the senior lienholder. See Compl. ¶¶ 54-70. These allegations adequately describe the circumstances of ...


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.