Ghusain v. Webb

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMEER GHUSAIN, Case No. 3:24-cv-01863-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 9 v. AND MOTION TO STRIKE 10 PETER WEBB, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 22, 29.

Defendants.

13 On September 26, 2024, Defendants motions to dismiss and strike came before the Court for hearing. (Dkt. Nos. 22, 29.) 1 At the commencement of the hearing, Plaintiff advised the Court he had reached a settlement of his claims against United. United’s motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED AS MOOT. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTS Defendant Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc.’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend and DENIES its motion to strike. (Dkt. Nos. 29.) Plaintiff’s “fraud and e-signature forgery” claim is dismissed because, among other defects, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged justifiable reliance on a misrepresentation made to him. Any amended complaint shall be filed by a deadline to be discussed at the initial case management conference.

22 Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages demands is denied because Defendant moved to strike pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f), which is the improper mechanism for dismissing punitive damages demands. See Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi- Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding Rule 12(f) “does not authorize a district court to strike a claim for damages on the ground that such damages are precluded as a matter of law,” and such “actions are better suited for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56 || motion”).

3 The Court CONTINUES the initial case management conference to December 12, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. via videoconference. A joint case management conference statement is due December 5, 2024.

6 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 22 and 29.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: September 27, 2024 10 ne ‘A CQUWELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States District Judge

= 17 Z 18