Central Flyway Air Inc v. Grey Ghost LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 25, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05506
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CENTRAL FLYWAY AIR, INC., a CASE NO. 20-5506 RJB - MAT 11 Canadian corporation, JON BOYCHUK, an individual, KRYSTLE BOYCHUK, and ORDER ON DEFENDANTS GREY 12 GREY GHOST GEAR OF CANADA, an GHOST LLC AND GREY GHOST Alberta Canada corporation, GEAR LLC’S MOTION TO 13 DISMISS COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 GREY GHOST LLC, an Idaho corporation with operations in Washington state, GREY 16 GHOST GEAR LLC, an Idaho corporation with operations in Washington state, 17 CASEY INGELS, an individual, 18 Defendants.

19 This matter comes before the Court on Grey Ghost LLC and Grey Ghost Gear LLC’s 20 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Dkt. 9. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support 21 of and in opposition to the motion and the file herein. 22 This matter arises from a business venture in Canada known as Grey Ghost Gear of 23 Canada, Ltd. Dkt. 1. Now pending is two of the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 9. 24 1 The moving Defendants argue that the Complaint fails to state a claim against them for 2 breach of contract and unjust enrichment and lacks any basis for injunctive relief. Dkt. 9. The 3 Plaintiffs respond and do not oppose the motion. Dkt. 14. They explain that “it is likely that 4 overlapping edits in multiple drafts resulted in the incorrect identification of certain defendants 5 in a number of places.” Id. They seek leave to amend their complaint to clarify their claims. Id.

6 Standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motions to dismiss may be based on either the lack of a 7 cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. 8 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations 9 are taken as admitted and the complaint is construed in the plaintiff's favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 10 717 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1983). “Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, 11 upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Moss v. U.S. 12 Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009). 13 Motion. The Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 9) should be granted and the Complaint 14 dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs should be given leave to file an amended complaint,

15 if they wish. The Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, if any, should be filed within 15 days of this 16 order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 18 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 19 Dated this 25th day of August, 2020. A 20

21 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 22

23 24