1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Shonrick Brame, No. CV-25-03225-PHX-JJT
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Hubbard Auto Center of Scottsdale,
13 Defendant. 14 15 At issue is Defendant Hubbard Auto Center of Scottsdale’s Motion to Dismiss 16 Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) and Motion to Strike Documents 31 and 33 (Doc. 34). 17 These motions have each been fully briefed. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 At the heart of this case is a “Bill of Exchange.” Plaintiff alleges that he and 20 Defendant executed a “Retail Order for Motor Vehicle” and he provided a “Bill of 21 Exchange (IBOE-1002) in the amount of $310,595.00, backed by registered bond RF-822, 22 to Defendant for the purpose of settlement and discharge of account” regarding the vehicle. 23 (FAC ¶¶ 1–2.) Defendant “refused and dishonored” the Bill of Exchange and did not 24 deliver the vehicle to Plaintiff. (FAC ¶¶ 3, 6.) Plaintiff then sent Defendant several notices 25 by certified mail that, according to him, preserved his rights under Arizona state law and 26 the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). (FAC ¶ 4.) Defendant ignored those notices 27 (FAC ¶ 5) and later sold the vehicle to someone else (FAC ¶ 6). 28 . . . 1 Plaintiff, as trustee of the Shonrick Brame Trust and proceeding pro se,1 sued on 2 behalf of the Trust for breach of contract, conversion of trust property, dishonor of lawful 3 tender, and unjust enrichment. Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 4 28, Mot.). Plaintiff responded in opposition (Doc. 30, Resp.), and Defendant replied (Doc. 5 32, Reply). Plaintiff additionally filed two sur-replies that contain the purported Retail 6 Order (Doc. 31, Sur-Reply I) and additional argument in response to Defendant’s reply 7 brief (Doc. 33, Sur-Reply II). Defendant moves to strike these two sur-replies, arguing that 8 those filings are not authorized by statute, rule, or court order. (Doc. 34.) Defendant’s 9 motion is well-taken, and the Court agrees that the sur-replies are improper. Nonetheless, 10 the Court will consider those sur-replies to address the full contours of Plaintiff’s 11 opposition to dismissal. 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 Defendant originally moved to dismiss Plaintif’s claims for failure to state a claim 14 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the first time in reply, Defendant 15 argues that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, providing a separate basis for 16 dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). (See Reply at 1–3.) While Plaintiff had the opportunity to 17 address these new arguments in his second Sur-Reply (even if it was improperly filed), he 18 did not. Still, the Court need not address this new argument because sufficient grounds for 19 dismissal exist under Rule 12(b)(6). 20 Rule 12(b)(6) is designed to “test[] the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. 21 Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to 22 state a claim can be based on either: (1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) the 23 absence of sufficient factual allegations to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. 24 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). When analyzing a complaint for 25 failure to state a claim, the well-pled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in 26 1 The Court briefly notes that pro se litigants cannot represent others, such as a trust entity. 27 C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987); Alpha Land Co. v. Little, 238 F.R.D. 497, 502 (E.D. Cal. 2006). Because Defendant did not object to 28 Plaintiff’s pro se representation of the Trust, and because the motions before the Court have been fully briefed, the Court will proceed to evaluate those motions. 1 the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 2 (9th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 3 plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has 4 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 5 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 6 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibility 7 standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer 8 possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. 9 “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not need detailed 10 factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief 11 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 12 cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up and citations omitted). 13 Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth 14 and therefore are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Iqbal, 15 556 U.S. at 679–80. However, “a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a 16 savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that ‘recovery is very remote 17 and unlikely.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 18 (1974)). 19 III. ANALYSIS 20 Plaintiff’s claims arise from one key assertion: that Defendant rejected his lawful 21 payment for the vehicle. Defendant generally argues that Plaintiff’s allegation that the Bill 22 of Exchange constitutes legal tender is both implausible and a legal conclusion that should 23 not be credited. (Mot. at 3–5; Reply at 3–8.) Plaintiff responds that the Court must not 24 determine whether his payment was, in fact, legal. Rather, Plaintiff contends that his claims 25 are supported by factual allegations that must be credited at this stage. (Resp. at 1–2; Sur- 26 Reply II at 1). He otherwise does not provide any legal argument or authority to support 27 his theory that a bill of exchange is a valid payment for goods. 28 . . . 1 A bill of exchange is “an unconditional written order by one person to another, 2 signed by the maker, requiring the person addressed to pay to a third party a specified sum 3 on demand or at a fixed or ascertainable future time.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 4 2014). As applied here, Plaintiff is the maker of the Bill of Exchange that orders some 5 unknown person or institution to pay Defendant in the amount of $310,595.00. Plaintiff 6 concludes, both in his First Amended Complaint and his briefing, that this Bill of Exchange 7 is a valid form of payment for a vehicle. (See FAC ¶¶ 2–3; Resp. at 2; Sur-Reply II at 1– 8 2.) Plaintiff’s own allegations about his Bill of Exchange reveal how implausible his legal 9 theory is. He alleges that his Bill of Exchange is “backed by registered bond RF-822,” 10 which would make it conditional on the bond value or maturity. But bills of exchange are 11 unconditional orders from the payor (e.g., Plaintiff) to a person or institution to pay an 12 amount certain to the payee (e.g., Defendant).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Shonrick Brame, No. CV-25-03225-PHX-JJT
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Hubbard Auto Center of Scottsdale,
13 Defendant. 14 15 At issue is Defendant Hubbard Auto Center of Scottsdale’s Motion to Dismiss 16 Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) and Motion to Strike Documents 31 and 33 (Doc. 34). 17 These motions have each been fully briefed. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 At the heart of this case is a “Bill of Exchange.” Plaintiff alleges that he and 20 Defendant executed a “Retail Order for Motor Vehicle” and he provided a “Bill of 21 Exchange (IBOE-1002) in the amount of $310,595.00, backed by registered bond RF-822, 22 to Defendant for the purpose of settlement and discharge of account” regarding the vehicle. 23 (FAC ¶¶ 1–2.) Defendant “refused and dishonored” the Bill of Exchange and did not 24 deliver the vehicle to Plaintiff. (FAC ¶¶ 3, 6.) Plaintiff then sent Defendant several notices 25 by certified mail that, according to him, preserved his rights under Arizona state law and 26 the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). (FAC ¶ 4.) Defendant ignored those notices 27 (FAC ¶ 5) and later sold the vehicle to someone else (FAC ¶ 6). 28 . . . 1 Plaintiff, as trustee of the Shonrick Brame Trust and proceeding pro se,1 sued on 2 behalf of the Trust for breach of contract, conversion of trust property, dishonor of lawful 3 tender, and unjust enrichment. Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 4 28, Mot.). Plaintiff responded in opposition (Doc. 30, Resp.), and Defendant replied (Doc. 5 32, Reply). Plaintiff additionally filed two sur-replies that contain the purported Retail 6 Order (Doc. 31, Sur-Reply I) and additional argument in response to Defendant’s reply 7 brief (Doc. 33, Sur-Reply II). Defendant moves to strike these two sur-replies, arguing that 8 those filings are not authorized by statute, rule, or court order. (Doc. 34.) Defendant’s 9 motion is well-taken, and the Court agrees that the sur-replies are improper. Nonetheless, 10 the Court will consider those sur-replies to address the full contours of Plaintiff’s 11 opposition to dismissal. 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 Defendant originally moved to dismiss Plaintif’s claims for failure to state a claim 14 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the first time in reply, Defendant 15 argues that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, providing a separate basis for 16 dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). (See Reply at 1–3.) While Plaintiff had the opportunity to 17 address these new arguments in his second Sur-Reply (even if it was improperly filed), he 18 did not. Still, the Court need not address this new argument because sufficient grounds for 19 dismissal exist under Rule 12(b)(6). 20 Rule 12(b)(6) is designed to “test[] the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. 21 Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to 22 state a claim can be based on either: (1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) the 23 absence of sufficient factual allegations to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. 24 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). When analyzing a complaint for 25 failure to state a claim, the well-pled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in 26 1 The Court briefly notes that pro se litigants cannot represent others, such as a trust entity. 27 C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987); Alpha Land Co. v. Little, 238 F.R.D. 497, 502 (E.D. Cal. 2006). Because Defendant did not object to 28 Plaintiff’s pro se representation of the Trust, and because the motions before the Court have been fully briefed, the Court will proceed to evaluate those motions. 1 the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 2 (9th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 3 plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has 4 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 5 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 6 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibility 7 standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer 8 possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. 9 “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not need detailed 10 factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief 11 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 12 cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up and citations omitted). 13 Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth 14 and therefore are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Iqbal, 15 556 U.S. at 679–80. However, “a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a 16 savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that ‘recovery is very remote 17 and unlikely.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 18 (1974)). 19 III. ANALYSIS 20 Plaintiff’s claims arise from one key assertion: that Defendant rejected his lawful 21 payment for the vehicle. Defendant generally argues that Plaintiff’s allegation that the Bill 22 of Exchange constitutes legal tender is both implausible and a legal conclusion that should 23 not be credited. (Mot. at 3–5; Reply at 3–8.) Plaintiff responds that the Court must not 24 determine whether his payment was, in fact, legal. Rather, Plaintiff contends that his claims 25 are supported by factual allegations that must be credited at this stage. (Resp. at 1–2; Sur- 26 Reply II at 1). He otherwise does not provide any legal argument or authority to support 27 his theory that a bill of exchange is a valid payment for goods. 28 . . . 1 A bill of exchange is “an unconditional written order by one person to another, 2 signed by the maker, requiring the person addressed to pay to a third party a specified sum 3 on demand or at a fixed or ascertainable future time.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 4 2014). As applied here, Plaintiff is the maker of the Bill of Exchange that orders some 5 unknown person or institution to pay Defendant in the amount of $310,595.00. Plaintiff 6 concludes, both in his First Amended Complaint and his briefing, that this Bill of Exchange 7 is a valid form of payment for a vehicle. (See FAC ¶¶ 2–3; Resp. at 2; Sur-Reply II at 1– 8 2.) Plaintiff’s own allegations about his Bill of Exchange reveal how implausible his legal 9 theory is. He alleges that his Bill of Exchange is “backed by registered bond RF-822,” 10 which would make it conditional on the bond value or maturity. But bills of exchange are 11 unconditional orders from the payor (e.g., Plaintiff) to a person or institution to pay an 12 amount certain to the payee (e.g., Defendant). 13 Moreover, even if a bill of exchange could be collateralized, courts across the 14 country have rejected that “bills of exchange” qualify as valid legal tender to extinguish a 15 contractual obligation. Sanders v. MTC Fin. Inc., No. CV-22-00066-TUC-SHR, 2022 WL 16 2665952, at *4 (D. Ariz. July 11, 2022) (dismissing a claim that an international bill of 17 exchange constituted legal tender to satisfy a loan); Lewis v. Synchrony Bank, No. 2:24- 18 CV-00110-DAD-JDP, 2024 WL 3494175, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 22, 2024), report and 19 recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-00110-DAD-JDP (PS), 2024 WL 3758615 (E.D. 20 Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) (collecting cases); see also De Wolf v. Rabaud, 26 U.S. 476, 490 (1828) 21 (“No instrument in the form of a bill of exchange, was ever held to be negotiable, unless in 22 some substantial form made payable to order on the face of it.”); Hennis v. Trustmark Bank, 23 No. CIV.A.210CV20KSMTP, 2010 WL 1904860, at *5 (S.D. Miss. May 10, 2010) 24 (collecting cases and noting that “the U.S. Treasury warns of bogus bills of exchange drawn 25 on the U.S. Treasury noting that ‘all these Bills of Exchange drawn on the U.S. Treasury 26 are worthless.’”) (citation omitted); Wiley v. Cadillac of Las Vegas, No. CV 2:24-2716, 27 2025 WL 1207157, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 25, 2025) (“Courts have unanimously found 28 1 IBOEs and similar forms to be worthless documents of the payor’s own creation and have 2 consistently dismissed these claims.”). 3 Because the theory that a Bill of Exchange can satisfy a payment obligation is 4 implausible, Plaintiff could not have performed under the purported sale contract by 5 offering this invalid form of payment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim fails. 6 Similarly, his claims that Defendant unlawfully rejected tender of payment, is liable for 7 conversion of the vehicle by selling it, and was unjustly enriched by retaining the benefits 8 of the sale, all fail because it is implausible that Plaintiff’s purported tender was valid or 9 that he had any legal interest in the vehicle. 10 Plaintiff’s theory that Defendant “dishonored” the Bill of Exchange is also not 11 supported by the law. “Dishonor” of a bill of exchange, which is a “draft” or “order” under 12 A.R.S. § 47-3104(E), occurs when the person or entity ordered to make the payment 13 (known as the “drawee” under A.R.S. § 47-3103) fails to pay the amount ordered or does 14 not accept the order to pay. See A.R.S. § 47-3502(B). According to Plaintiff’s allegations, 15 Defendant’s obligation here was not one of a “drawee”—that would be reserved for the 16 person or institution that held Plaintiff’s purported funds that he ordered to be paid to 17 Defendant. Rather, Defendant’s obligation was to deliver the vehicle, but that obligation 18 never came to pass because Plaintiff did not tender legal payment. 19 “[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the 20 pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by 21 the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 22 Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). This is especially true of pro se 23 pleadings. In general, pro se litigants are “entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies 24 and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 25 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit is “very cautious in approving a district 26 court’s decision to deny pro se litigants leave to amend.” Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 27 295 F.3d 966, 977 (9th Cir. 2002). However, even pro se pleadings are subject to dismissal 28 without leave to amend where amendment would be futile. Id. The Ninth Circuit has 1 || approved the dismissal of pro se pleadings without leave to amend. See, e.g., McZeal v. || JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 735 F. App’x 913, 917 (9th Cir. 2018). 3 This case presents the rare circumstance where it is appropriate to dismiss a pro se 4|| pleading without affording leave to amend. Plaintiffs legal theory that a bonded 5 || International Bill of Exchange constitutes valid legal payment for a vehicle is meritless, 6 || and it is this legal theory that serves as the predicate for all of his claims. See Sanders, 2022 7\| WL 2665952, at *5 (dismissing claims based on a similar theory without leave to amend). 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss || Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) without leave to amend. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendant’s Motion to Strike 11 || Documents 31 and 33 (Doc. 34). 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to close this matter. 13 Dated this 18th day of May, 2026. CN 14 “wok: Unifga States#District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-6-