Heidingsfelder
Heidingsfelder v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ROBERT W. HEIDINGSFELDER, et al., Case No. 19-cv-08255-JD
Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS
v. AMENDED COMPLAINT
AMERIPRISE AUTO & HOME Re: Dkt. No. 42 INSURANCE, et al., 11 Defendants.
12 The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed. The Court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend under Rule 12(b)(6) because, among other issues, it failed to differentiate between the four defendants, did not state facts establishing a fiduciary relationship, and did not plausibly demonstrate that defendants had breached an contractual obligation. Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC), Dkt. No. 39, which defendants again ask to dismiss. Dkt. No. 42. Dismissal of the FAC is warranted. The 172-page FAC (not including exhibits) is nearly four times as long as the original complaint. The added bulk did not fix the prior substantive problems. Much of the extended length is due to redundancy, with entire…