Ha v. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC

Background

Sally Ha, who represented herself, sued New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, doing business as AT&T Mobility, for breach of contract. Ha alleged that she opened an account with AT&T in 2017 and entered into an installment agreement in July 2023 to finance a new cell phone.

In August and September 2023, Ha sent AT&T an endorsed bill of exchange, a tender of payment titled “Letter of Credit Claim,” and a certified copy of a durable power of attorney. She alleged that these documents fulfilled her contractual obligations. AT&T did not accept them as payment and sent her a letter disputing her claims and declining her demands. Ha also alleged that she later made cash payments totaling $919.74 and $422.22 to protect the account from unlawful closure.

Ha previously filed an original complaint. The court dismissed it for failure to state a claim but allowed her to amend. Ha then filed an amended complaint, and AT&T again moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately allege a legally actionable claim.

Court’s Analysis

Under California law, a breach-of-contract claim requires allegations showing: (1) a contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or an excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages.

The court had previously found that Ha plausibly alleged the existence of a contract but not the other elements. The amended complaint relied on the same documents and nearly identical legal theories. The court again found that Ha did not plausibly allege that she performed her obligations under the installment agreement or that AT&T breached the agreement.

The installment agreement did not require AT&T to accept Ha’s notices and attachments as payment. The court also found no support for Ha’s claim that the agreement required AT&T to use a security interest or proceeds from alleged collateral that she had provided. The court rejected her arguments based on a reference to District of Columbia regulations and the Uniform Commercial Code, explaining that neither the agreement, the regulations, nor the Uniform Commercial Code required AT&T to accept her bill of exchange as payment.

Ruling

The court concluded that the amended complaint did not support a legally cognizable breach-of-contract theory and described the claim as frivolous because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. The court granted AT&T’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without leave to amend, finding it clear that further amendment would be futile. The clerk was directed to close the file.

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi issued the order on May 10, 2024.