Wu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUPER EFFECT INVESTMENTS Case No. 22-cv-05668-AGT

LIMITED,

Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS v. Re: Dkt. No.

HAILI WU, et al., Defendants.

The Court denies defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has stated a plau- sible breach-of-contract claim, which is the only claim in the complaint. Defendants argue that the contract was a sham, but to support this contention, they rely on evidence outside the com- plaint. See Dkt. 15-1, Wu Decl. ¶¶ 1–21; see also Reply, Dkt. 25 at 12 (“Defendants have in- troduced substantial documents recording the sham nature of the agreement and respectfully request that the Court take the evidence into consideration when making its judgment . . . .”). The Court cannot consider this “extraneous evidence” when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001). Nor will the Court convert defendants’ motion into a motion for summary judgment. The Court also denies defendants’ Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. When…