Klein v. Justin D. Heideman LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

R. WAYNE KLEIN, as Receiver, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiff, MOTION TO DISMISS

v. Case No. 2:19-cv-00854-DN-PK JUSTIN D. HEIDEMAN, LLC, DBA HEIDEMAN & ASSOCIATES, a Utah District Judge David Nuffer limited liability company,

Defendant.

Plaintiff R. Wayne Klein was appointed as receiver in United States v. RaPower-3, LLC, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00828-DN-EJF (D. Utah), over RaPower-3, LLC (“RaPower”), International Automated Systems Inc. (“IAS”), LTB1 LLC, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and the assets of Neldon Johnson and R. Gregory Shepard.1 Plaintiff subsequently initiated this case to recover funds that are alleged to have been fraudulently transferred to Defendant Justin D. Heideman, LLC from RaPower and IAS.2 Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.3 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss challenges the sufficiency of the Complaint by disputing the Complaint’s allegations, asserting facts that go beyond the Complaint’s allegations, and arguing for inferences from the facts which

1 Corrected Receivership Order (“RaPower-3 Receivership Order”), ECF no. 491 in No. 2:15-cv-00828-DN-EJF (D. Utah), filed Nov. 1, 2018. 2 Complaint, docket no. 2, filed Oct. 31, 2019. 3 Motion to Dismiss, docket no. 6, filed Dec. 12, 2019. are favorable to Defendant.* These types of challenges are not appropriate under the standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6). When reviewing a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, factual allegations are accepted as true and reasonable inferences are drawn in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.° Each cause of action must be supported by sufficient, well-pleaded facts to be plausible on its And dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint, standing alone, is legally insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be granted.’ Applying this standard of review to Plaintiff's Complaint, there are sufficient, well- pleaded facts for Plaintiff's avoidance of fraudulent transfers and unjust enrichment claims to be plausible on their face. The Complaint is legally sufficient to state a claim on which relief can be granted. ORDER THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss® is DENIED. Signed February 24, 2020. BY THE COURT hw United States District Judge

41d. 5 GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381, 1384 (10th Cir. 1997). 6 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 7 R. Clv.P. 12(b)(6); Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). Motion to Dismiss, docket no. 6, filed Dec. 12, 2019.