Samsung cites no persuasive legal authority supporting its position to the contrary. The only case it cites in which a court dismissed a breach of contract claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is Williams v. Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa, 293 F. Supp. 2d 958, 970 (N.D. Iowa 2003). Williams, however, granted the motion to dismiss because the plaintiff alleged the breach of a contract provision that did not exist.

As this court has explained on a number of occasions, "[t]he required elements of fraudulent misrepresentation under Iowa law are: (1) a material (2) false (3) representation coupled with (4) scienter and (5) intent to deceive, which the other party (6) relies upon with (7) resulting damages to the relying party." Schaller Telephone Co. v. Golden Sky Systems, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1104 (N.D. Iowa 2001) (quoting Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., 114 F. Supp. 2d 797, 819 (N.D. Iowa 2000), in turn citing Doe v. Hartz, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1055 (N.D. Iowa 1999)) (internal quotations and citations omitted)); Webster Indus., Inc. v. Northwood Doors, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 821, 844 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (same); Williams v. Security Nat'l Bank of Sioux City, Iowa, 293 F. Supp. 2d 958, 971 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (same); Gunderson v. ADM Investor Servs., Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 892, 922 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (same); Tralon Corp. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 812 (N.D. Iowa 1997) (same); Jones Distrib. Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 943 F. Supp. 1445, 1473 (N.D. Iowa 1996) (same); accord Smidt v. Porter, 695 N.W.2d 9, 22 (Iowa 2005) ("The elements of fraudulent misrepresentation are (1) representation; (2) falsity; (3) materiality; (4) scienter; (5) intent; (6) justifiable reliance; and (7) resulting injury."); Lloyd v. Drake Univ., 686 N.W.2d 225, 233 (Iowa 2004) (citing elements); Gibson v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 388, 400 (Iowa 2001) ("To establish a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must prove (1) defendant made a representation to the plaintiff, (2) the representation was false, (3) the representation was material, (4) the defendant knew the representation was false, (5) the defendant intended to deceive the plaintiff, (6) the plaintiff acted in reliance on the t

I. INTRODUCTIONA. Factual Background This court has addressed some of the pertinent background to this litigation in a prior published ruling, Williams v. Security National Bank of Sioux City, IA, 293 F. Supp.2d 958 (N.D. Iowa 2003). However, some of that background bears repeating here, and some additional facts are also relevant to the present dispute over whether this federal action should be stayed in favor of a probate action in state court.