Wescott v. Crowe

Background

The court had previously dismissed Wescott’s second amended complaint in all respects except three claims against David Crowe and Lyonette: breach of a settlement agreement, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted Wescott, who was representing himself, permission to amend the complaint consistently with that earlier order. The court also noted concerns about indications that Wescott had been declared a vexatious litigant in other courts, but it reserved action on that issue.

Court’s Analysis

The third amended complaint did not materially correct the defects identified in the earlier complaint. The court said the pleading was difficult to follow and, in many respects, unintelligible. Even when read liberally in Wescott’s favor because he was representing himself, the complaint did not change the court’s conclusions about the claims previously dismissed.

The court separately addressed the emotional-distress claim against Crowe and Lyonette. It concluded that the claim was based on an alleged breach of contract. Citing California law, the court stated that emotional distress generally is not a legally recognized claim in a breach-of-contract case. The complaint did not allege facts indicating that a rare exception might apply.

Disposition

The court dismissed all claims in the third amended complaint without leave to amend, except for the breach-of-settlement-agreement and breach-of-the-covenant-of-good-faith claims against Crowe and Lyonette. The emotional-distress claim against those defendants was dismissed without leave to amend. The court stated that the two breach claims are the only claims going forward.