Hatcher
Hatcher v. Easyriders Licensing, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Leon Hatcher (“Hatcher”) and two Easyriders franchises located in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (collectively “Plaintiffs”) 1 appeal the district court’s dismissal of their third amended complaint (“TAC”). The TAC alleges, inter alia, federal securities violations and state common law tort and contract claims. The TAC was dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a prior court order and for failure to plead in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hatcher contends that dismissal with prejudice of his individual tort and contract claims in Part B of the TAC was too harsh a sanction, and that Plaintiffs’ claims for fraud and misrepresentation were adequately plead in Part A of the TAC.
The parties are familiar with the underlying facts of this case so only those facts necessary to explain this decision will be set out. The initial complaint filed on April 28, 2000, covered 203 pages and named 21 defendants, with allegations spanning 422 paragraphs. The complaint asserted forty-five causes of action, including claims for federal securities violations, violations of the California Corporate Code, state law…
Concurrence in Part
Graber, J.
GRABER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in part and dissent in part.
1. As I read the district court’s order, the court dismissed only Part B of the Third Amended Complaint for failure to follow the court’s prior orders. I agree with the majority that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Part B for that reason.
2. Turning to Part A of the Third Amended Complaint, I disagree with the majority’s bottom line on two claims: state common-law claims for fraud and misrepresentation. As to those claims, the district court erred in holding that the Third *740 Amended Complaint failed to state a claim. The elements of such a claim are adequately pleaded against the individual defendants with respect to pre-merger statements. I therefore dissent to the extent that the majority affirms the dismissal of such state-law claims.
3. The district court properly analyzed the remainder of Part A of the Third Amended Complaint and permissibly denied another opportunity to amend.