Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-cv-1513-GET.
February 6, 2006
ORDER
The above-styled matter is presently before the court on:
1) Defendant Suncoast RV, Inc.'s ("Suncoast") motion to dismiss [docket no. 146]; and
2) Plaintiffs Larry and Betty Mize's motion for extension of time to respond to Suncoast's motion for summary judgment [docket no. 194].
Plaintiffs filed the instant action in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, on April 25, 2005, alleging that defendant Winnebago Industries, Inc. ("Winnebago") and defendant Workhorse Custom Chassis, LLC ("Workhorse"), who manufactured parts of plaintiffs' motor home, failed to comply with their express and implied warranties in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et. seq. ("Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act"). Defendants removed the action to this court on June 9, 2005 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d). Plaintiffs dismissed Workhorse with prejudice on April 28, 2006.
On October 20, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint. In an order dated February 15, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and to extend discovery. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on February 16, 2006. The amended complaint added Suncoast as a party to the lawsuit. Plaintiffs assert claims against Suncoast for fraudulent concealment, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-6-2(b), common law fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages.
On June 2, 2006, Suncoast filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs responded to Suncoast's motion on June 20, 2006. Suncoast filed a motion for summary judgment on November 11, 2006. Plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Suncoast's motion for summary judgment on December 11, 2006.
Suncoast's Motion to Dismiss
Standard
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint. It is viewed with disfavor and rarely granted. See e.g., International Erectors, Inc. v. Wilhoit Steel Erectors Rental Service, 400 F.2d 465, 471 (5th Cir. 1968). A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984);Pataula Electric Membership Corp. v. Whitworth, 951 F.2d 1238, 1240 (11th Cir. 1992). The court is to presume true all of the complaint's allegations and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Duke v. Cleland, 5 F.3d 1399, 1402 (11th Cir. 1993). The rules require nothing more than "a short and plain statement" that will give the defendant fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they are based. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).Discussion
Suncoast's motion to dismiss alleges that plaintiffs' claims for fraud do not meet the heightened pleading requirements established by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The Rule states: "In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity." Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Rule 9(b) requires that "a plaintiff must plead 'facts as to time, place, and substance of the defendant's alleged fraud,' specifically 'the details of the defendant['s] allegedly fraudulent acts, when they occurred, and who engaged in them." United States ex rel. Clausen v. Lab. Corp. Of Am., 290 F.3d 1301, 1310 (11th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
Suncoast's motion further contends that plaintiffs' amended complaint fails to plead sufficient facts for each element necessary to establish a claim for fraud and should therefore be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Suncoast asserts that plaintiffs' claims in their amended complaint are "vague, spurious, unsubstantiated and impermissibly based on speculation, guess work, opinion and legal conclusions."
After considering the parties' arguments, the court finds that the procedural posture of the case does not lend itself to a decision in favor of Suncoast on its motion to dismiss. Questions of fact exist that cannot be resolved simply by reading plaintiffs' amended complaint and the record needs to be more fully developed to resolve these issues. See Friedlander v. Nims, 755 F.2d 810, 813 n. 3 (11th Cir. 1985) ("[A] court considering a motion to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity should always be careful to harmonize the directives of Rule 9(b) with the broader policy of notice pleading" contained in Rule 8). The court finds that plaintiffs' amended complaint presents sufficient facts to meet the requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 9(b). Thus, the court hereby DENIES Suncoast's motion to dismiss [docket no. 146].
Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time
Plaintiffs filed a motion on December 11, 2006 requesting an additional fourteen (14) days to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Suncoast filed a response opposing plaintiffs' motion on December 19, 2006. After considering the parties' arguments, the court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time [docket no. 194] to respond to Suncoast's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to submit their response within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
Summary
1) Defendant Suncoast RV, Inc.'s ("Suncoast") motion to dismiss [docket no. 146] is DENIED; and
2) Plaintiffs Larry and Betty Mize's motion for extension of time to respond to Suncoast's motion for summary judgment [docket no. 194] GRANTED. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to submit their response within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.