Barton v. Alleviate Tax LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 17, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-06071
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 NATHEN BARTON, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-6071-DGE-RJB 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO v. DISMISS 10 ALLEVIATE TAX LLC, and JOHN DOE 1-10, 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a 14 Claim and Under FRCP 9(b) (Dkt. 26). The Court is familiar with the records and files herein 15 and all documents filed in support of and in opposition to the motion. 16 Included in Defendant Alleviate Tax LLC’s Amended Answer to Plaintiff Nathen 17 Barton’s First Amended Complaint and Counterclaim to Plaintiff Nathen Barton’s First 18 Amended Complaint (Dkt. 24) is Defendant's counterclaim of fraud that is the subject of the 19 pending motion. 20 It is foundational law that allegations of fraud require detailed pleadings setting forth the 21 elements of fraud. They are follows: "To prevail on a common law claim of fraud, the plaintiff 22 must establish each of the following elements: (1) representation of an existing fact; (2) 23 materiality; (3) falsity; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity; (5) intent of the speaker that it 24 1 should be acted upon by the plaintiff; (6) plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity; (7) plaintiff's reliance 2 on the trust of the representation; (8) plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and (9) damages suffered by 3 the plaintiff." BP W. Coast Prod., LLC, 2012 WL 2277843 at *3 (citing Stiley v. Block, 130 4 Wash.2d 486, 504, 925 P.2d 194 (1996). 5 A careful analysis of Defendant's pleadings in this case indicate to the Court that the

6 allegations of fraud in the counterclaim offered (Dkt. 24) comply with the requirement to state a 7 claim and to specifically list the elements of the claim under FRCP 9(b). This is particularly 8 convincing when one reviews the counterclaim of the Defendant with the Defendant's briefing 9 in response to Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 34) that clearly adds information expanding on the details 10 of the elements of Defendant's counterclaim alleging fraud. Accordingly, the motion should be 11 DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated this 17th day of June, 2024. 14 A

15 ROBERT J. BRYAN 16 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24