Cynthia Wills v. First Republic Bank
19-17001
| 9th Cir. | Feb 18, 2022Background:
- Cynthia Wills sued First Republic Bank for breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED); the district court dismissed both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The district court had previously allowed Wills to file an amended complaint and provided specific guidance about pleading deficiencies; the amended complaint still failed to cure defects.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice; Wills appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Appellate standards: de novo review of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and abuse-of-discretion review of a decision to deny leave to amend or to dismiss with prejudice.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded Wills pleaded only formulaic recitations of elements and conclusory allegations, failing the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, and affirmed the dismissal with prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading sufficiency — breach of contract | Wills alleged a contract existed, she performed (or was excused), and the bank breached | Allegations were conclusory recitations of contract elements without factual support | Dismissed — allegations implausible under Twombly/Iqbal; dismissal affirmed |
| Pleading sufficiency — NIED | Wills alleged the bank owed a duty and caused emotional injury | Complaint lacked factual allegations showing duty, breach, causation, or damages | Dismissed — conclusory negligence allegations insufficient |
| Dismissal with prejudice — abuse of discretion | Wills sought another opportunity to amend | Bank noted she already had an amended complaint and failed to cure despite court guidance | Affirmed — district court gave notice and guidance; denial of further leave was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to be plausible)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plaintiffs must plead more than formulaic element recitations)
- Judd v. Weinstein, 967 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2020) (de novo review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115 (Cal. 2011) (elements required to plead a breach-of-contract claim under California law)
- Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements and causation principles for negligence-type claims)
- Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2007) (conclusory allegations and unreasonable inferences do not defeat a motion to dismiss)
- Chappel v. Lab’y Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for dismissal with prejudice)
- Chodos v. W. Pub’g Co., 292 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court has broad discretion to deny leave to amend, especially after prior amendment)
- Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court should give notice of pleading deficiencies to allow effective amendment)
- Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris, 794 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where plaintiff failed to cure deficiencies)