United States of America v. Ogden

Background

The case arose from a housing dispute between Relator/Counter-Defendant Thomas Grinner and Defendant/Counterclaimant Dana Ogden. Grinner brought a claim under the False Claims Act concerning Ogden’s alleged receipt of housing-voucher payments. Ogden filed a counterclaim for breach of contract against Grinner and 50 unnamed Roe Counter-Defendants.

Ogden alleged that the parties entered a one-year lease running from October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019, and that Grinner breached it by stopping rental payments in June 2019. She sought unpaid rent, attorney’s fees and costs, and interest. The counterclaim stated that Ogden had performed all required conditions, promises, and obligations under the lease and other written agreements.

Legal standard

The court evaluated Grinner’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a pleading does not adequately state a legally sufficient claim. To plead breach of contract under California law, a claimant must allege a contract, a breach, the claimant’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, and resulting damages.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Ogden did not adequately plead the essential terms of the lease. Although she identified the parties, the tenancy dates, the payment timing, and the rental property’s address, she did not state the monthly rent. The court treated the rental amount as an essential lease term. Ogden also referred to “other written agreements” without attaching them or describing their essential terms, so she did not adequately plead that those agreements existed.

The court rejected Grinner’s argument that Ogden had failed to allege a breach of the lease. Ogden alleged that Grinner ended the lease before its stated end date and stopped making payments, leaving rent unpaid from June through September 2019. The court found that nonpayment of rent adequately alleged a breach of the lease. However, Ogden did not plead adequate facts showing a breach of the other written agreements.

The court found that Ogden’s allegations about her own performance were conclusory. Her statement that she had performed all required obligations merely recited an element of a contract claim and did not identify her contractual duties, explain their scope, or state whether she performed them.

Disposition

The court granted Grinner’s motion as to Ogden’s breach-of-contract counterclaim and dismissed the counterclaim with leave to amend. The court determined that amendment did not appear futile because Ogden could add allegations addressing the identified deficiencies. The court ordered Ogden to file any amended counterclaim by March 22, 2021.