Lloyd
Lloyd v. Mullenex
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 KENNETH LLOYD, Case No. 19-cv-03999-NC 11 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
12 v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS
13 KEVIN MULLENEX, Re: Dkt. No. 21 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 In this fraud cause, defendant Kevin Mullenex moves to dismiss all claims in plaintiff 18 Kenneth Lloyd’s complaint. Dkt. No. 21. Mullenex argues that Lloyd’s fraud claims are 19 insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), that some claims are time-barred 20 by the statute of limitations, and that other claims fail under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court 21 FINDS that Lloyd’s fraud, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation claims 22 are sufficiently alleged under Rule 9(b) and are not time-barred. The Court DENIES the 23 motion to dismiss those claims. The Court further FINDS that Lloyd’s conversion, breach 24 of fiduciary duty, intentional interference with prospective business relations, negligent 25 interference with prospective business relations, and unfair competition…