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.

Builders Bank v. Oreland, LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 23, 2015

BUILDERS BANK, an Illinois Bank Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
ORELAND, LLC, a California limited liability company; TIERRAVIEW, LLC, a California limited liability company; RICHARD PAEK, an individual also known as RICHARD J. PAEK, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 31]

DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Case. (Dkt. No. 31.) Having heard oral arguments and considered the parties' submissions, the Court adopts the following order.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff seeks to enforce a set of environmental indemnity contracts concerning certain property on West Colton Street in Los Angeles. (Compl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants agreed in these contracts to indemnify Plaintiff

against any and all damages (including, without limitation, consequential damages), losses of any kind or of any nature whatsoever... arising directly or indirectly from or out of... the past, present or future presence, Release or threat of Release of any Hazardous Substances on, in, under or affecting all or any portion of the Property or any surrounding areas, regardless of whether or not caused by or within the control of any Indemnitor....

(Id. at ¶ 9 (ellipses omitted).) The contracts were executed on August 22, 2006. (Id. at ¶ 7; Reply at 2:9.)

Plaintiff further alleges that these contracts contained provisions waiving, "[t]o the extent permitted by law... [t]he defense of the statute of limitations in any action hereunder." (Compl., Ex. A, § 3(b).)

Plaintiff alleges that the property in question has, indeed, been subjected to the release of "Hazardous Substances, " which has caused Plaintiff losses in the form of lowered property value. (Compl., ¶¶ 12-13.) It therefore brings this suit for indemnification under the contracts.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

In order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint need only include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 55 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A complaint must include "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must "accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants seek to dismiss the Complaint on two grounds: inadequate pleading under Rules 8 and 9, and statute of limitations.

A. Rule 8 Pleading

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Complaint "cites no cause of action at all" and that "[i]t is impossible for Defendants to defend" against uncertain ...


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.