Jeremy Ryan v. Best In Slot, LLC FZ

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02348
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Jeremy RYAN, Case No.: 25-cv-2348-AGS-BLM

4 ORDER SCREENING THIRD Plaintiff, 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND v. ORDERING SERVICE 6

7 BEST IN SLOT, LLC FZ, 8 Defendant. 9 Plaintiff Jeremy Ryan, proceeding without an attorney and in forma pauperis, is 10 suing defendant Best In Slot, LLC FZ, over alleged misrepresentations. The Court 11 dismissed several prior complaints during mandatory screening. (See ECF 4, 9, 15.) But 12 Ryan’s fourth attempt—his third amended complaint (ECF 16)—is sufficiently pleaded to 13 pass screening. 14 DISCUSSION 15 The Court must screen and “dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state 16 a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). A complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 18 true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 19 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 12(b)(6). 21 The Court previously concluded that Ryan’s contract and quasi-contract claims were 22 “sufficient to pass the ‘low threshold for proceeding past the screening stage’ and state a 23 breach-of-contract claim.” (ECF 15, at 2 (quoting Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of 24 Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 2017)).) But the Court dismissed his fraud-based 25 claims for failing to appropriately allege the “who” and “when” of the fraud and for failing 26 to set out plausible allegations of “fraudulent intent.” (Id. at 3–4.) In his latest complaint, 27 Ryan has addressed each: explaining “who” was engaged in the alleged fraud, setting out 28 1 “when” they made the allegedly fraudulent representations, and providing allegations that 2 || support a conclusion that the company made the representations knowing them to be false, 3 || for the purposes of fraudulent intent. (See ECF 16, at 7-11.) Helpfully, Ryan also provided 4 ||a glossary of terms and explained the technology involved, so the Court was better able to 5 understand his allegations. (See id. at 5—7.) He has thus provided sufficient allegations to 6 “the low threshold for proceeding past the screening stage” on his fraud claims, as 7 || well. See Byrd, 845 F.3d at 924. 8 CONCLUSION 9 The Court orders as follows: 10 1. Plaintiff's third amended complaint may be served. 11 2. Because plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status, he is entitled to 12 || the assistance of the United States Marshal Service in serving his complaint. See Fed. R. 13 P. 4(c)(3). Plaintiff must coordinate with that office and provide it any information 14 || necessary to effectuate service. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) 15 || (requiring an IFP plaintiff to “furnish[] the information necessary to identify the defendant” 16 || to the United States Marshal). 17 3. The Clerk must issue summons and forward a copy of this order to the 18 || United States Marshal Service. 19 Dated: December 3, 2025

1 Andre Schopler United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 a □□