Foregger v. Redfin Corporation

Background

Christina Foregger sued her former employer, Redfin Corporation, alleging that attorneys representing Redfin made false statements about her during proceedings in California state court. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it did not follow the requirement for a short and plain statement, did not adequately state a defamation claim, and did not identify the cause of action.

Foregger’s amended complaint alleged that Redfin had “fraudulently” used the state court system to silence a whistleblower. The court understood her allegations to concern a workplace restraining-order dispute. Foregger alleged that Taylor Neff falsely described herself in state court as Foregger’s co-worker rather than as an attorney, and that this misrepresentation harmed Foregger’s real estate business.

Redfin moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally recognized claim. Redfin alternatively asked the court to require a clearer statement or compel arbitration. Foregger opposed the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Foregger appeared to assert one claim: “fraudulently using the State Court to try and silence a whistleblower.” The court held that no such cause of action exists. To the extent Foregger intended to allege fraud on the court, the court said she needed to identify the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud.

The court found that the allegations about Neff were insufficient to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity. Even giving Foregger’s self-represented complaint the most generous reading, the court could not determine what claims she was asserting, the legal basis for those claims, or the supporting facts. Although Foregger indicated that the case involved a federal law or right, the complaint did not identify a federal statute or constitutional provision or explain how one applied.

The court also noted that Foregger had not repeated the apparent defamation claim that the court previously found inadequately pleaded. The court stated that it had already explained the deficiencies in the original complaint and given Foregger an opportunity to correct them, but the amended complaint repeated those deficiencies.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Redfin’s motion to dismiss, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. It found that another amendment would be futile, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Redfin, and ordered the case closed. The court did not reach Redfin’s request to compel arbitration. It terminated Docket Nos. 48, 57, and 62 as moot.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. stated that Foregger could appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and that she had to file a notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of judgment. The court also stated that no further filings would be considered in the closed case and warned that continued filings could lead to restrictions on Foregger’s electronic-filing privileges or other action.