Tan v. Quick Box, LLC

• Decision Date: 16 June 2021
• Docket Number: Case No.: 3:20-cv-01082-H-DEB
• Parties: LEANNE TAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUICK BOX, LLC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

LEANNE TAN, an individual,on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUICK BOX, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-01082-H-DEB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

June 16, 2021

ORDER:

(1) SUBMITTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND VACATING HEARING; AND

(2) DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART THE LA PURA DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 151.]

On April 21, 2021, Defendants Konnektive LLC, Konnektive Corporation, Konnektive Rewards, LLC, Matthew Martorano, and Kathryn Martorano (collectively, the "Konnektive Defendants") each filed crossclaims against Defendants Beautiful Skin and Health SL, Inc., Coastal Beauty Care KV, Inc., Coastal Health & Body TML, Inc., Coastal Skin Care DC, Inc., Complete Beautiful Skin DT, Inc., Complete Dietary Health DT, Inc., DL Group, Inc., Diet and Beauty Enterprise JB, Inc., Dietary 8 Leaves TL, Inc., Dietary Care Group MK, Inc., Dietary Health DL, Inc., Dietary Health Management SL, Inc., Dietary Health Supplements ADN, Inc., Dietary Mind & Body AR, Inc., Dietary Pills TTH, Inc., Dietary Supplements 8 Leaves TL, Inc., Dietary Supplements NS, Inc., EM Strength & Wellness Products, Inc., EW Ideal Health Store, Inc., EW Radiant Skin Store, Inc., Fit Body Forever KZ, Inc., Fit Lifestyle Enterprise JD, Inc., Fit and Slim Body Olo, Inc., Fitness & Health Supplements PKL, Inc., Flawless Beauty Forever MC, Inc., Forever Beautiful Products KZ, Inc., Forever Beauty and Balance JL, Inc., Health & Body Care TN, Inc., Health & Skin Nutrition JLN, Inc., Health & Wellness Products EM, Inc., Health Enterprise AR, Inc., Health Enterprise LT, Inc., Health Skin and Beauty MAYA, Inc., Health Skin and Body JB, Inc., Health and Diet Products ISA, Inc., Health and Fitness Lifestyle JL, Inc., Healthy Beautiful Skin JD, Inc., Healthy Body & Balance CD, Inc., Healthy Fit Lifestyle DC, Inc., Healthy Leaves TL, Inc., Healthy Lifestyle Diet JL, Inc., Healthy Skin Group TQH, Inc., Healthy Skin Lifestyle JB, Inc., Healthy Supplements MAYA, Inc., Healthy and Slim TT, Inc., Ideal Skin & Health Care NA, Inc., Lasting Fitness & Beauty JLN, Inc., PKL Everlasting Beauty, Inc., Radiant Skin & Body Shop ATN, Inc., Remarkable Beauty TN, Inc., Remarkable Health Supply PO, Inc., Skin Beauty & Health JN, Inc., Skin Beauty Products ISA, Inc., Skin Beauty and Balance CD, Inc., Skin Care Enterprise TTH, Inc., Skin Care Group MK, Inc., Skin Products Rubio, Inc., Skin and Beauty NS, Inc., Strength & Fitness Lifestyle LT, Inc., Total Fitness & Health MC, Inc., Total Health Supply TUA, Inc., and Vibrant Face & Beauty Shop ATN, Inc. (collectively, the "La Pura Defendants").¹ (Doc. Nos. 137-141.) On April 22, 2021, Defendants Chad Biggins, James Martell, Stephen Adelé, and Quick Box, LLC (collectively, the "Quick Box Defendants") each filed crossclaims against the La Pura Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 145, 147-49.) On May 12, 2021, the La Pura Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the crossclaims filed by the Konnektive Defendants and the Quick Box Defendants. (Doc. No. 151.) On May 28, 2021, the Konnektive Defendants and the Quick Box Defendants filed their oppositions to the La Pura Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 154, 155.) On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff LeAnne Tan filed a notice of partial joinder of the La Pura Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 156.) On June 7, 2021, the La Pura Defendants filed their reply. (Doc. No. 162.) On June 7, 2021, the Konnektive Defendants filed an objection to Plaintiff's notice of partial joinder, and the Quick Box Defendants joined the objection. (Doc. Nos. 160, 161.)

A hearing on the matter is currently scheduled for June 21, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. The Court, pursuant to its discretion under the Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, submits the motion on the parties' papers, and vacates the hearing. For the following reasons, the Court denies in part and grants in part the La Pura Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Background

The factual background underlying this action has been previously laid out in detail in the Court's prior orders. (Doc. Nos. 88, 130.) Briefly, this lawsuit involves an alleged fraudulent scheme in which Defendants allegedly use fake celebrity endorsements and reviews and misrepresentations about price and limited availability to induce consumers into purchasing beauty and skincare products. (Doc. No. 89 ¶¶ 8-12.) In the operative complaint, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), Plaintiff asserts five causes of action: (1) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (3) violation of the unfair and fraudulent prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (4) violation of the unlawful prong of California's Unfair Competition Law; and (5) civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act violations. (Id. ¶¶ 363-908.) On April 7, 2021, the Court denied in part and granted in part the La Pura Defendants, the Konnektive Defendants, and the Quick Box Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's FAC. (Doc. No.130.) Subsequently, the Konnektive Defendants and the Quick Box Defendants filed their answers to Plaintiff's FAC, as well as crossclaims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g)² against the La Pura Defendants for (1) equitable indemnity, and (2) common law contribution. (Doc. Nos. 137 ¶¶ 5-13; 145 ¶¶ 11-19.)³ The Konnektive Defendants and the Quick Box Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's FAC but allege that should they be found jointly and severally liable for any judgment, they are entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from the La Pura Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 137 ¶ 1; 145 ¶ 2.) By the present motion, the La Pura Defendants seek to dismiss the Konnektive Defendants and the Quick Box Defendants' crossclaims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 151.)

Discussion

I. Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). "Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory." Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads "factual contentthat allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint, courts "accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008); see Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1990) ("It is well-established that questions of fact cannot be resolved or determined on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."). "The factual allegations of the complaint need only 'plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.'" Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216-17 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681). Nonetheless, courts do not "accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001)).

II. Analysis

A. Whether the Konnektive Defendants and the Quick Box Defendants Have Stated Crossclaims for Equitable Indemnity

The La Pura Defendants argue that the Konnektive Defendants and the Quick Box Defendants' crossclaims for equitable indemnity should be dismissed; they assert there is no right to equitable indemnity for claims based on intentional torts where the party denies jointly participating in the tort. (Doc. No. 151 at 3.) They argue the Konnektive Defendants and the Quick Box Defendants stated in their crossclaims that Plaintiff's alleged injuries were "caused wholly" by the acts of the La Pura Defendants, (Doc. No. 145 ¶ 2), and contend this counts as a judicial admission that they are not joint intentional tortfeasors, (Doc. No. 151 at 3-4.)

"The common law equitable indemnity doctrine relates to the allocation of loss among multiple tortfeasors." Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Haslam, 35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 135, 139 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). The doctrine of equitable indemnity "permit[s] a concurrenttortfeasor to obtain partial indemnity from other concurrent tortfeasors on a comparative fault basis." Underwriters at Lloyd's Subscribing to Cover Note B1526MACAR1800089 v. Abaxis, Inc., 491 F. Supp. 3d 506, 516 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting Am. Motorcycle Ass'n v. Superior Ct., 578 P.2d 899, 912 (Cal. 1978)). "The doctrine applies only among defendants who are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff." BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Constr., Inc., 14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721, 723 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004); see also Miller v. Sec. Life of Denver Ins. Co., No. C 11-1175 PJH, 2012 WL 1029279, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) ("A claim for equitable indemnity requires a tort claim asserted by the original plaintiff against the proposed indemnitee on which to base joint and several liability, between the proposed indemnitor and indemnitee."). Equitable indemnity need not be premised on identical claims alleged against joint and several tortfeasors; rather, "[t]he claims...