CACD Federal MTD — Pleading Standards

Federal motions to dismiss in the Central District of California are decided under the universal Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard. To survive Rule 12(b)(6), the 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); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Plausibility "is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

What the court accepts as true

The court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001).

What the court does NOT accept

• Conclusory allegations. "[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
• Unwarranted deductions of fact and unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
• "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
• A formulaic recitation of the elements. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
• Allegations contradicted by exhibits to the complaint. Produce Pay, Inc. v. Izguerra Produce, Inc., 39 F.4th 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2022).

What the court can consider

• The complaint and any exhibits attached to it.
• Documents incorporated by reference where the complaint necessarily relies on them and authenticity is undisputed. Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th Cir. 2018); Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).
• Matters of judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, including state-court filings. Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006).

How CACD applies the standard in practice

The Twombly/Iqbal recital appears in essentially every CACD MTD ruling. Defendants in CACD typically attach the underlying contract, plan, or product document as incorporation-by-reference material; the actual document then defeats allegations contradicting its terms. This is a recurring win condition for movants.

When plaintiffs respond by pleading new theories in opposition briefing, the court will not consider those allegations. Schneider v. California Department of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). New facts must be in the operative complaint, not in motion papers.

When plaintiffs respond by asking for discovery to develop facts that would cure pleading deficiencies, the court will deny that request. "A plaintiff who fails to meet the pleading requirements of Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) is not entitled to conduct discovery in the hope that it might yield facts permitting them to state a claim." Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987).

If you're the moving party

• Identify each element of the claim and the specific allegation said to satisfy it. Quote conclusory phrasings and pair with what is missing.
• Attach the underlying contract, plan, or product document via incorporation by reference. Where the document contradicts plaintiff's allegations, cite Produce Pay.
• Anticipate plaintiff raising new theories in opposition; cite Schneider preemptively.

If you're the opposing party

• Group allegations by element to demonstrate how each is supported by specific factual matter.
• Plead the basis for any information-and-belief allegations.
• Do not defer factual development to discovery. If the facts exist, plead them; if not, the claim fails.
• Avoid raising new theories for the first time in opposition. If new facts have come to light, seek leave to amend.

When a complaint sounds in fraud, Rule 9(b) layers a heightened-particularity requirement on top of the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard. "In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

The "who, what, when, where, and how" formulation

"A pleading satisfies Rule 9(b) if it identifies 'the who, what, when, where, and how' of the misconduct charged." Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003). The plaintiff "must set forth more than the neutral facts necessary to identify the transaction" and "must set forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false." Id.

This is the operative formulation in CACD. The Vess five-element test recurs in every Rule 9(b) ruling in the corpus.

When Rule 9(b) applies

Rule 9(b) applies whenever a claim sounds in fraud, regardless of the underlying statute:

• CLRA when based on fraudulent omission or misrepresentation. Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009).
• FAL when grounded in fraud. Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 964 (9th Cir. 2018).
• UCL fraudulent prong. Same Vess particularity required.
• Common-law fraud, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation. Universal.
• PSLRA-governed securities-fraud claims. Rule 9(b) PLUS the PSLRA's additional particularity requirement for falsity and scienter under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1)(B), (b)(2)(A). See In re VeriFone Holdings, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., 704 F.3d 694, 701 (9th Cir. 2012).

Omission theories require additional structure

For CLRA/FAL/UCL omission claims, Rule 9(b) particularity requires the plaintiff to identify (1) who made the omission, (2) what information was omitted, (3) when the omission occurred, (4) where the omitted information should or could have been disclosed, and (5) how the omission was misleading. McIntyre v. American Honda Motor Co., 739 F. Supp. 3d 776, 799 (C.D. Cal. 2024); Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 2012 WL 841019, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012).

Further, the omission must be either (a) contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant, or (b) of a fact the defendant was obliged to disclose. Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2018); Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824, 836 (2006). The defendant's duty to disclose can arise in four circumstances: (1) fiduciary relationship; (2) exclusive knowledge of material facts; (3) active concealment; or (4) partial representations plus suppression of material facts. Kulp v. Munchkin, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 1158, 1169 (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Materiality is part of the pleading

For an omitted fact to be material, the plaintiff must show that "had the omitted information been disclosed, one would have been aware of it and behaved differently." Falk v. General Motors Corp., 496 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Materiality looks to whether "a reasonable consumer would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question." Acevedo v. Sunnova Energy Corp., 738 F. Supp. 3d 1268, 1281 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (quoting Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 806 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2015)).

If you're the moving party

• Identify the specific representation or omission and demand the who/what/when/where/how. Quote the complaint's allegations and pair with the missing element.
• For omissions, attack on three fronts: (a) is there a contrary representation? (b) has the duty-to-disclose element been pleaded under Hodsdon? (c) is materiality alleged with sufficient specificity?
• Attach the actual product packaging, contract, or marketing materials via incorporation by reference. The disclosure plaintiff says was missing is often present on the document itself.

If you're the opposing party

• For affirmative misrepresentation claims, plead the specific statement, why it is false or misleading, and when it was made.
• For omission claims, plead which of the four Hodsdon/Kulp duty-to-disclose circumstances applies and the facts establishing it.
• For materiality, plead specifically how a reasonable consumer would have behaved differently with the omitted information.
• Do not raise new theories of liability in opposition briefing. Schneider v. California Department of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998).

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court is generally limited to the pleadings. But CACD courts routinely consider documents incorporated by reference and matters subject to judicial notice. Defendants in CACD use these doctrines to bring the actual contract, plan, or product document before the court — and that document often defeats allegations contradicting its terms.

Incorporation by reference

"[A] court may consider unattached evidence on which the complaint 'necessarily relies' if: (1) [t]he complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the document." United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011).

The Ninth Circuit's leading articulation appears in Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th Cir. 2018): the doctrine "prevents plaintiffs from selecting only portions of documents that support their claims, while omitting portions of those very documents that weaken — or doom — their claims."

The doctrine applies broadly to any document the complaint depends on:

• Contracts and agreements. Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). Used in Hernandez v. AT&T (459042395) for the ERISA Plan documents; Milan v. JPMorgan (460228766) for Bill Pay Service agreements.
• Insurance policies. Standard incorporation in coverage-declaratory cases.
• Product packaging and disclosure documents. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Used in Albertsons (449720330) for gift-card packaging that disclosed the tampering risk plaintiff alleged was hidden.
• SEC filings and corporate disclosures. Used in Sonder (450471057) for the company's 8-K, 10-K, and quarterly reports plus FASB ASC 842 standards.
• Court filings in related actions. Used in State National v. Mostafavi (465178645) for state-court complaint and rulings.

Judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201

The court may take judicial notice of facts that are "not subject to reasonable dispute" because they are either generally known or capable of accurate and ready determination. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Common categories:

• Court filings in related actions. Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). Used widely in the corpus.
• Plaintiff's litigation history. Used in Cash v. Resurgent (456067797) where the court took notice of plaintiff's 25 prior filings in CACD.
• Government regulations and agency materials. Used in Sonder for FASB accounting standards; in Russell v. Dave (461828447) for CFPB Regulation Z interpretations.
• Publicly accessible contracts of adhesion. Used in Russell v. Dave for Dave's Terms of Service.

What this lets defendants do

In the CACD pleading game, defendants frequently win by attaching the actual document plaintiff's complaint references. Three patterns recur:

1. The disclosure was actually made. Plaintiff alleges defendant concealed X; the actual product packaging or contract discloses X. Albertsons is the canonical example.
2. The terms are not as alleged. Plaintiff characterizes a contract or policy in generic terms; the actual document contradicts the characterization. Milan v. JPMorgan is canonical — the BPTAs disclosed when funds would be deducted.
3. The document defeats specific elements. Plaintiff alleges a fact that conflicts with what the operative document plainly states. Produce Pay v. Izguerra Produce, 39 F.4th 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2022) governs: court need not credit allegations contradicted by exhibits.

If you're the moving party

• Identify every document the complaint depends on. File a request for judicial notice OR rely on incorporation by reference for documents central to the claim.
• Quote the actual document text in the moving brief, paired with plaintiff's contradictory allegation.
• Cite Khoja for incorporation; Reyn's Pasta Bella or Ritchie for judicial notice; Produce Pay when the document defeats allegations.

If you're the opposing party

• Anticipate the defendant attaching the underlying document. If your complaint depends on a document, plead its terms accurately, not generically.
• Where defendant requests judicial notice of materials beyond the complaint's scope (e.g., extrinsic facts about market conditions), oppose those specific exhibits while acknowledging the operative document.
• Authenticity objections are typically losers if the document is publicly available. Reserve authenticity challenges for genuinely doubtful cases.