Ghusain v. Webb
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-01863
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ghusain v. Webb, Judge Corley denied United’s motion as moot, granted Balfour Beatty’s dismissal motion with leave to amend, and denied its motion to strike.
Ameer Ghusain, United, and Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc.; the court dismissed Ghusain’s claim against Balfour Beatty with leave to amend and denied the other stated motions as described above.
What happened
Ghusain v. Webb involved motions to dismiss and strike brought by defendants. At the hearing, Ameer Ghusain told the court he had settled his claims against United.
The court denied United’s motion to dismiss as moot. It granted Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc.’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, dismissing Ghusain’s “fraud and e-signature forgery” claim because he had not plausibly alleged justifiable reliance on a misrepresentation. The court denied Balfour Beatty’s motion to strike the punitive-damages demands because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) was not the proper procedure for that request.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley continued the initial case-management conference to December 12, 2024, and stated that an amended complaint’s deadline would be discussed at that conference.
The detailed version
- Ghusain v. Webb · No. 3:24-cv-01863
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 27, 2024
Background
The court heard defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike on September 26, 2024. At the beginning of the hearing, Plaintiff Ameer Ghusain told the court that he had settled his claims against United.
Rulings
The court denied United’s motion to dismiss as moot.
The court granted Defendant Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc.’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court dismissed Ghusain’s “fraud and e-signature forgery” claim because, among other defects, he had not plausibly alleged justifiable reliance on a misrepresentation made to him. The court stated that the deadline for any amended complaint would be discussed at the initial case-management conference.
The court denied Balfour Beatty’s motion to strike Ghusain’s punitive-damages demands. Balfour Beatty had used Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows certain matter to be removed from a pleading, but the court held that this was not the proper procedure for dismissing punitive-damages demands. The court noted that such a request is better handled through a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or a summary-judgment motion.
Further Proceedings
The court continued the initial case-management conference to December 12, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. by videoconference. A joint case-management conference statement was due December 5, 2024. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 22 and 29.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.