Bailey
Bailey v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JANICE DEGEUS, et al., Case No. 19-cv-05325-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS
WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, Re: Dkt. No. 41 INC., et al., Defendants.
For the reasons discussed at the hearing, the second amended complaint is dismissed. Bare allegations of wrongdoing are scattered throughout the complaint in a seemingly random order, and the plaintiffs have neglected to plead crucial elements of their claims. To provide just one example of many, the plaintiffs did not plead a single criminal act by the defendants, let alone the pattern of racketeering activity required for a RICO claim. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), (5); United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Building & Construction Trades Dep’t, AFL-CIO, 770 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 2014). Nor did the plaintiffs particularly plead “the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged” by the fraud-based claims. Ebeid ex rel. United States v. Lungwitz, 616 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The plaintiffs have been warned repeatedly about these defects in prior iterations of the complaint. See…