Jeremy Ryan v. Best In Slot, LLC FZ

Opinion

Jeremy RYAN, Case No.: 25-cv-2348-AGS-BLM

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

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

Andre Schopler United States District Judge 2 a □□