Kearns

Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.

Good Law

567 F.3d 1120·2009 WL 1578535·73 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1168·2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12289

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 200907-55835California3,230 words

Opinion

Smith, J.

William Kearns’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) claimed violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1750-1784, and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 17200-17210. Those state claims are subject to Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 9(b)”) which requires that allegations of fraud be pleaded with particularity. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Because we find that Kearns’s claims were all grounded in fraud, his failure to plead the TAC with particularity merited its dismissal, and we must affirm the district court. As the TAC was properly dismissed, we need not reach the moot issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by striking the first footnote.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Kearns brought this diversity class action for himself and those similarly situated (collectively “Kearns”), claiming that Ford Motor Company and its dealerships (collectively “Ford”) acted illegally to increase sales of their Certified Pre-Owned (“CPO”) vehicles, in violation of the CLRA and UCL. The district court dismissed Kearns’s TAC for failure to plead fraud with particularity as required by Rule…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.