Wills v. United Parcel Service

Background

Cynthia S. Wills filed the case without a lawyer. The opinion says that her original state-court complaint named the United States Postal Service, Hanson Bridgett LLP, and First Republic Bank. The defendants removed the case to federal court, and the court previously denied Wills’s request to send it back to state court. The court had also previously dismissed Wills’s claims against Hanson Bridgett and First Republic Bank while allowing her to amend.

In the amended complaint, Wills identified herself and Carmel Resort Supply as plaintiffs and described herself as an individual and sole proprietor doing business as Carmel Resort Supply. She alleged that First Republic Bank had agreements with her concerning delivery of a $10,000 check to American Express and an $800 check to her. She alleged that the checks were not delivered on time, causing payment problems and harm to her business. She also alleged that Hanson Bridgett contacted her while representing the bank, notified her that the bank account was being closed, and did not include the $800 check with its letter. Wills later received two checks at another location.

First Republic Bank and Hanson Bridgett moved to dismiss the entire amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim.

Breach of contract

The court dismissed Wills’s breach-of-contract claims against both defendants. As to First Republic Bank, the court said Wills had not cured the earlier pleading problem because she did not identify the terms of any written agreement or provide facts showing what the offer was, how it was accepted, or what consideration was exchanged. The court found that describing the agreements as valid and binding was a legal conclusion rather than sufficient factual support.

As to Hanson Bridgett, Wills referred to unspecified “2018 Agreement/s,” but the court found it unclear what agreements she meant. The court stated that an attached individual retirement account withdrawal form was not a contract with Hanson Bridgett because the firm did not sign it, was not mentioned on it, and was not alleged to have known about it. The court also found that Wills did not explain why any agreement with the bank would obligate the law firm.

Negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress

The court dismissed the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. It explained that negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent claim and requires an underlying negligence claim. Wills did not allege facts establishing that either First Republic Bank or Hanson Bridgett owed her a duty of care, or that a special relationship or other circumstances created such a duty. The court therefore found that the amended complaint did not state a plausible negligence or negligent-infliction claim.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The court dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. It found that the alleged conduct—checks arriving late—was ordinary rather than extreme and outrageous. Wills also did not provide facts showing that either defendant acted intentionally or recklessly to cause emotional distress. In addition, the court found that the alleged business losses and need to leave office space did not establish the level of substantial or enduring emotional distress required for this claim.

Claims by Carmel Resort Supply

The court considered whether Carmel Resort Supply had claims separate from Wills’s claims. It found that the amended complaint did not allege that Carmel Resort Supply entered into a contract or suffered damages separately from Wills. The defendants’ motions to dismiss were therefore granted as to Carmel Resort Supply for the same reasons.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It dismissed the claims for breach of contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress and underlying negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against First Republic Bank and Hanson Bridgett LLP. The court found that further amendment would be futile and dismissed the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.