Hillcrest Investments, Ltd. v. Robison, 2:15-cv-01509

Plaintiffs Hillcrest Investments, Ltd. and KMI Zeolite, Inc. sued multiple defendants over work and alleged false reporting relating to the Amargosa Property in Nye County, Nevada.
Plaintiffs alleged Robison Engineering and Nathan Robison were paid to modify a mining plan but did not complete the work and submitted false information to the BLM, causing a BLM trespass notice.
Plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserted causes of action including equitable indemnity, intentional misrepresentation, respondeat superior, punitive damages, and breach of contract against the Robison Defendants.
Robison Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state claims as to intentional misrepresentation, punitive damages, and respondeat superior; Galtar moved to dismiss based on an earlier settlement agreement.
Plaintiffs conceded dismissal of Galtar and conceded that the amended complaint did not adequately plead intentional misrepresentation or punitive damages, but sought leave to amend to assert alternative federal false-statement claims.
The court dismissed the intentional misrepresentation, punitive damages, and respondeat superior claims against the Robison Defendants with prejudice, granted dismissal of Galtar with prejudice, and gave Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint within 14 days to assert different causes of action based on the alleged facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether intentional misrepresentation claim was sufficiently pleaded	Alleged Robison submitted false info to BLM causing harm	Robison argued pleading insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6)	Dismissed with prejudice (Plaintiffs conceded inadequate pleading)
Whether punitive damages claim stands as independent cause	Plaintiffs sought punitive damages tied to misrepresentation	Defendants argued punitive damages not an independent cause	Dismissed with prejudice (punitive damages not a standalone claim)
Whether respondeat superior may be pleaded as a cause of action	Plaintiffs pleaded employer vicarious liability for employee acts	Defendants argued respondeat superior is a theory, not a cause of action	Dismissed with prejudice (respondeat superior not a standalone claim)
Whether Galtar should be dismissed	Plaintiffs agreed dismissal appropriate based on settlement	Galtar moved to dismiss under settlement agreement	Granted; Galtar dismissed with prejudice
Whether leave to amend should be allowed	Plaintiffs requested leave to assert alternative/federal claims and reassert punitive if evidence develops	Defendants did not oppose amendment in part	Court allowed a second amended complaint to assert different causes of action within 14 days but found amendment to replead the dismissed theories futile

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1990) (courts may consider material properly submitted as part of the complaint)
Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1994) (documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint may be considered on a 12(b)(6) motion)
Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1986) (courts may take judicial notice of matters of public record)
DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1992) (leave to amend should be granted unless deficiencies cannot be cured)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (Rule 15(a) factors governing leave to amend)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (district courts should grant leave to amend unless pleading cannot possibly be cured)
Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 1995) (standards for allowing amendment after dismissal)