Foregger v. Redfin Corporation

Background

Christina Foregger, who represented herself, filed a complaint against Redfin Corporation in Alameda County Superior Court in July 2024. Redfin removed the case to federal court in August 2024 and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim. Redfin alternatively asked for a more definite statement or an order compelling arbitration.

The court understood Foregger to allege that several attorneys representing Redfin, her former employer, made false statements about her while pursuing what she called a fraudulent workplace-violence restraining order against her in state court. She alleged that the restraining order harmed her real estate business. Her complaint identified “defamation of character” and “defrauding the court system” as causes of action and requested $3 million in compensatory damages.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Although the court applied a more forgiving reading because Foregger was representing herself, it found that the allegations did not provide enough context or explain how the alleged facts connected to the stated claims.

For defamation, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege a false and defamatory publication that was unprivileged and either naturally tended to injure the plaintiff or caused special damages. Foregger referred to Redfin’s “lying attorneys,” but the complaint did not identify the substance of the allegedly false statements, when they were made, or to whom. The court said it was not required to search the attached documents or Foregger’s opposition brief for facts that were missing from the complaint itself.

The court also found it unclear what legal claim Foregger intended by “defrauding the court system.” It explained that a “fraud on the court” claim allows a court to vacate a judgment obtained by fraud, but Foregger appeared to seek damages rather than vacatur of the restraining order. The court further found that the allegations did not identify the required details of any alleged fraud, including who acted, what was done, when and where it occurred, and how it occurred. The complaint therefore did not give Redfin fair notice of the claims against it.

Ruling and next steps

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Redfin’s motion to dismiss. Because that ruling disposed of the complaint, the court did not decide Redfin’s alternative argument that the claims were subject to arbitration.

The court stated that it could not conclude at that stage that amendment would be futile. It ordered Foregger to file an amended complaint by April 22, 2025. The court warned that failure to meet that deadline could result in dismissal of the action in its entirety without further leave to amend, and that an amended complaint could also be dismissed if it did not correct the identified deficiencies. The court said any amended pleading must adequately identify the conduct alleged to violate a law or right and explain how the facts establish each claim’s elements.

The opinion also noted that statements made by lawyers or others in legal pleadings or during legal proceedings are likely protected by California’s litigation privilege, which can bar liability for tort claims such as defamation.