K.R.
K.R. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
K.R., Case No. 19-cv-08252-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS
G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 56 Defendants.
Marriott International’s motion to dismiss K.R.’s second amended complaint is granted for failure to allege any facts supporting the theory of successor liability. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Under the doctrine of successor liability, a company may step into the shoes of a predecessor company and become “liabl[e] for a predecessor’s actions.” CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. App. 4th 1101, 1120 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). By its very nature, successor liability thus depends on the actions of the predecessor company—not the successor—and it is these actions that form the factual basis for successor liability claims. The complaint itself purports to recognize this distinction. See Second Amended Compl. ¶ 11(a) (Dkt. 54) (“Defendant Marriott is the successor entity to Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. and retains successor liability for the wrongful acts of the predecessor.”) (emphasis…