throbber
Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.50 Page 1 of 14
`
`
`
`
`Mark O. Morris (4636)
`Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
`15 West South Temple, Suite 1200
`Salt Lake City, UT 84101
`Telephone: (801) 257-1900
`Facsimile: (801) 257-1800
`Email: mmorris@swlaw.com
`Attorney for Defendant
`True North of Utah, LLC
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`JLPR, LLC, a Utah limited
`liability company;
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`Utah Department of Agriculture and Food,
`Utah Division of Purchasing, General
`Services, The State of Utah, Scott Ericson,
`Kerry Gibson, Kelly Pehrson, Andrew Rigby,
`Cody James, Natalie Callahan, Mellissa Ure,
`Brandy Grace, Christopher W. Hughes, Mark
`Anderson, Zac Christensen, Stephanie Casta,
`Standard Wellness Utah, LLC, and True
`North of Utah, LLC,
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00436
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS
`AGAINST DEFENDANT TRUE NORTH
`OF UTAH, LLC
`
`Hon. Ted Stewart
`
`(Oral Argument Requested)
`
`Defendants.
`
`Defendant True North of Utah, LLC, (“True North”) moves the Court pursuant to Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Sixth Cause of Action, and only claim against Truth North
`in JLPR, LLC’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Complaint, because it fails to plead this claim with particularity
`and fails state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, if the Court is not inclined
`to dismiss this claim, True North moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), for an order that Plaintiff
`provide a more definite and, importantly, factual statement.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.51 Page 2 of 14
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 2
`I. 
`STANDARD ON A MOTION TO DISMISS ........................................................ 2 
`II. 
`PLAINTIFF DOES NOT STATE A CLAIM FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY .......... 2 
`Plaintiff Did Not Properly Allege an Underlying Tort. ......................................... 2 
`Plaintiff’s Civil Conspiracy Claim Lacked Particularity. . ..................................... 3 
`Plaintiff Failed to State a Claim for Civil Conspiracy. ........................................... 4 
`Plaintiff Failed to Properly Allege a “Meeting of the Minds.” .................. 6 
`1. 
`Plaintiff Failed to Properly Allege an “Illegal, Overt Act.” ...................... 7 
`2. 
`ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD ORDER A MORE DEFINITE
`STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 8 
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 8 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.52 Page 3 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Federal Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................... 2
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................................ 2, 6
`Celtig, LLC v. Patey,
`347 F.Supp.3d 976 (D. Utah 2018) ............................................................................................. 2
`Garth O. Green Entrps., Inc. v. Harward,
`No. 2:15-cv-00556, 2017 WL 1184024 (D. Utah Mar. 29, 2017) .............................................. 2
`Griffin v. Breckenridge,
`403 U.S. 88 (1971) ...................................................................................................................... 3
`Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins,
`656 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 2
`Montgomery v. City of Ardmore,
`365 F.3d 926 (10th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 4, 7
`Robbins v. Oklahoma,
`519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 6
`Sposi v. Santa Clara City, Utah,
`No. 2:17-cv-1057-CW, 2018 WL 1578038 (D. Utah Mar. 27, 2018) ........................................ 8
`Sugenex, LLC v. Predictive Therapeutics,
`LCC, 462 F.Supp3d 1160 (D. Utah 2020) .................................................................................. 5
`Tilton v. Richardson,
`6 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................ 3
`Unified Container, LLC v. Mazuma Capital Corp.,
`280 F.R.D. 632 (D. Utah 2012) .................................................................................................. 4
`World Wide Assoc. of Specialty Programs v. Pure, Inc.,
`450 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`State Cases 
`
`Coroles v. Sabey,
`79 P.3d 974 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) .............................................................................................. 4
`Estrada v. Mendoza,
`275 P.3d 1024 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) ...................................................................................... 2, 3
`Israel Pagan Estate v. Cannon,
`746 P.2d 785 (Utah App. 1987) .................................................................................................. 6
`Pohl, Inc. of Am.,
`201 P.3d 944 (Utah 2008) ........................................................................................................... 4
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.53 Page 4 of 14
`
`
`
`Federal Statutes 
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1983 ............................................................................................................................. 3
`42 U.S.C. § 1985 ............................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Federal Rules 
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ......................................................................................................................... 1
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ............................................................................................ Introduction, 1, 4, 9
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).......................................................................................... Introduction, 2, 9
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) ................................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.54 Page 5 of 14
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Complaint literally stated no claim against True North upon which relief may be
`granted, and thus this Court should dismiss the Complaint as to True North. Dissatisfied with its
`unsuccessful bid at obtaining a coveted license to cultivate medical cannabis in Utah via a highly
`competitive process, Plaintiff’s scorched-earth Complaint blindly cast blame on nearly everyone
`involved in the selection process—seventeen separate defendants—including successful
`applicants, like defendant True North. But despite the medley of generically pled federal and state
`claims in Plaintiff’s 41-page Complaint, few allegations involve Truth North. In fact, Plaintiff’s
`only cause of action against True North, which also included all of the other defendants, is an
`obscure and factually vapid claim of civil conspiracy.
`What is most notable about Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim, with respect to True North,
`is what it failed to include. Plaintiff did not allege, with any specificity, that representatives of True
`North came to an agreement or a meeting of the minds with anyone, or that they engaged in an
`illegal, overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy in a way that detrimentally impacted Plaintiff.
`Indeed, the Complaint contained no allegations regarding which individuals at True North engaged
`in the alleged conspiracy, where an agreement was made, when it was made, and what it
`specifically entailed. On the contrary, Plaintiff’s allegations against True North were nothing more
`than blanket and generic recitations of the elements of a civil conspiracy claim.
`Plaintiff’s failure to allege any specific facts to support a viable claim of civil conspiracy
`against True North demonstrated that Plaintiff only intends to engage in a prolonged fishing
`expedition, hoping to ultimately uncover nefarious behavior among the successful applicants who
`were awarded a cultivation license. In doing so, Plaintiff’s barren allegations against True North
`in its Sixth Cause of Action are not sufficient to meet the pleading standards set forth in Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 8(a), much less the heighted pleading requirements in Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) that apply here.
`In addition, the deficient allegations failed also to state a claim for civil conspiracy, and thus this
`Court should dismiss them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as set forth more fully below.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.55 Page 6 of 14
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`STANDARD ON A MOTION TO DISMISS
`To satisfy Rule 8 and survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
`factual allegations which, if accepted as true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
`face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`544, 570 (2007)). When considering a motion to dismiss, the court assumes the truth of well-pled
`allegations, but disregards conclusory statements of law. Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins,
`656 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011). “Legal conclusions and opinions are not accepted, even if
`couched as facts.” Garth O. Green Entrps., Inc. v. Harward, No. 2:15-cv-00556, 2017 WL
`1184024, at *2 (D. Utah Mar. 29, 2017). This is because “[s]atisfying the basic pleading
`requirements of the federal rules ‘demands more than the unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-
`harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or a ‘formulaic recitation
`of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”’ Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). ‘“Naked
`assertions devoid of further factual enhancement’ do not state a claim sufficiently to survive a
`motion to dismiss.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The very few paragraphs in the Complaint
`that actually contain the words “Truth North” constitute the very definition of these categories of
`deficient allegations.
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFF DOES NOT STATE A CLAIM FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY
`A.
`Plaintiff Did Not Properly Allege an Underlying Tort.
`Participation in a civil conspiracy is not, by itself an actionable tort. Celtig, LLC v. Patey,
`347 F.Supp.3d 976, 986 (D. Utah 2018). Rather, a civil conspiracy claim requires that “a plaintiff
`show that the defendant participated in an underlying tort.” Id. (citing Estrada v. Mendoza, 275
`P.3d 1024, 1029 (Utah Ct. App. 2012)). Here, Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action is so devoid of
`specificity, it is entirely unclear what underlying tort, if any, True North is alleged to have
`participated in. Indeed, an underlying tort is not specifically described in the Sixth Cause of Action,
`nor is a single federal or state statute cited with respect to this claim. (See Dkt. No. 2 at ¶¶ 182-89)
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.56 Page 7 of 14
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint generally alleges that all defendants “conspired and acted under the
`color of law to deprive Plaintiff of its federal protected constitutional rights” pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
`§§ 1983 and 1985. (Id. at ¶ 21) But this allegation is not specifically included within the Sixth
`Cause of Action. (Id. at ¶¶ 182-89) And even assuming that the Sixth Cause of Action were to
`mention and constitute a federal civil rights conspiracy claim under §§ 1983 and 1985, it fails to
`allege a proper protected status. Federal civil rights conspiracy claims do not “apply to all tortious,
`conspiratorial interferences with the rights of others,” but rather, only to conspiracies motived by
`“some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.” Tilton v.
`Richardson, 6 F.3d 683, 686 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102
`(1971)). Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to allege any racial, class-based, or other discriminatory
`animus. Nor could it. Thus, the Sixth Cause of Action cannot and does not constitute a valid federal
`civil rights conspiracy claim under §§ 1983 and 1985.
`The Complaint also generally alleged that some of the defendants—not including True
`North—violated Plaintiff’s rights under Utah law and the State Constitution. (Id. at 138-81) But
`again, none of these allegations were specifically included within Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action.
`Indeed, the Complaint did not include any allegations that True North conspired to engage any
`behavior that would deprive Plaintiff of rights conferred to it under Utah law or the State
`Constitution. Thus, with respect to True North, because Plaintiff has “not adequately pleaded any
`of the basic torts they allege … dismissal of their civil conspiracy claim is appropriate.” Estrada,
`275 P.3d at 1029 (citation omitted).
`
`B.
`Plaintiff’s Civil Conspiracy Claim Lacked Particularity.
`Where the unlawful act underlying the civil conspiracy is a fraud-based tort, both the
`underlying tort and the civil conspiracy claim must be pleaded with particularity pursuant to Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 9(b). Unified Container, LLC v. Mazuma Capital Corp., 280 F.R.D. 632, 636-37 (D.
`Utah 2012); see also Coroles v. Sabey, 79 P.3d 974, 984 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (Where civil
`conspiracy is predicated on fraud it “must be pleaded with particularity, even though in this context
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.57 Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`the fraud is simply an element of the [civil conspiracy] claim rather than the claim itself.”)
`Although Plaintiff did not specify an underlying tort, the Complaint alleged that various defendants
`engaged in a litany of fraudulent acts to deprive Plaintiff of a license to cultivate medical cannabis
`in Utah. These fraud-based allegations include, without names, dates, places, actions, or context,
`“improper influence” of the selection process (Dkt. No. 2 at ¶¶ 42-53), manipulation of the
`selection process to benefit particular applicants (Id. at ¶¶ 54-74), intentional misapplication of
`scoring criteria (Id. at ¶¶ 75-90), and “illegal collusion” to select “favored applicants” (Id. at ¶¶
`91-101). While none of these allegations are specifically tied to True North, the heightened
`pleading requires of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) nonetheless apply to Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action.
`And, as described in detail below, Plaintiff’s single claim against Truth North failed to meet Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 9(b)’s pleading requirements, and this Court should dismiss it.
`
`C.
`Plaintiff Failed to State a Claim for Civil Conspiracy.
`The elements of a prima facie case for civil conspiracy pursuant to Utah law are: “(1) a
`combination of two or more persons, (2) an object to be accomplished, (3) a meeting of the minds
`on the object or course of action, (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts, and (5) damages as a
`proximate result thereof.” Pohl, Inc. of Am., 201 P.3d 944, 954-55 (Utah 2008). These allegations
`must include “specific facts showing an agreement and concerted action amongst the defendants”
`and “the manner in which the conspiracy operated.” Montgomery v. City of Ardmore, 365 F.3d
`926, 940 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s allegations
`against Truth North, even when viewed as true, do not satisfy the “meeting of the minds” and the
`“one or more unlawful, overt acts” element of this cause of action.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs also failed to allege other elements of their claim. However, the obvious absence of
`allegations sufficient to allege a “meeting of the minds” and “one or more unlawful, overt acts” is
`sufficient alone to warrant dismissal of the claim.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.58 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`
`The sole allegations in Plaintiff’s 41-page Complaint that involve True North are:
` “True North conspired with the other Defendants, including state officials, to
`deprive JLPR of its federally protected rights.” [Dkt. No. 2 at ¶ 18]
` “Department Commissioner Kerry Gibson was shown in a photograph meeting
`with Mike Standlee and Bill Stevens of successful applicant True North of Utah
`during the application process opened.” [Id. ¶ 106]
` “The unlawful and overt acts described above were committed in furtherance of a
`common design, intention, or purpose by each of the Defendants.” [Id. ¶ 183]
` “Specifically, there was a meeting of the mind between each of the Defendants
`with at least one other Defendant to accomplish the object of assuring that certain
`favored applicants receive cultivation licenses and to thereby deprive JLPR of
`obtaining a cultivation license.” [Id. ¶ 184]
` “Defendant True North agreed with various persons at the DAF around May or
`June of 2019 to ensure that their companies would illegally obtain a cultivation
`license.” [Id. ¶ 186]
` “To accomplish these ends, the conspiring Defendants agreed to and engaged in
`numerous unlawful, overt acts.” [Id. ¶ 188]
`That is it . . . all of the claims against True North in the Complaint. Paragraphs 18, 183,
`184, and 188 are mere “labels and conclusions” which the Court must disregard. For example,
`Plaintiff includes all seventeen defendants in paragraph 18 in a non-specific attempt at alleging a
`conspiracy. But “[a] plaintiff may not merely declare that the defendants conspired together and
`hope to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Sugenex, LLC v. Predictive Therapeutics, LLC, 462 F.Supp3d
`1160, 1176 (D. Utah 2020) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57.) The Tenth Circuit has
`emphasized that “[t]he Twombly Court was particularly critical of complaints that ‘mentioned no
`specific time, place, or person involved in the alleged conspiracies.’” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519
`F.3d 1242, 1248 (10th Cir. 2008). The Court made clear that when dealing with “complex claims
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.59 Page 10 of 14
`
`
`
`against multiple defendants,” it is “particularly important … that the complaint make clear exactly
`who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each individual with fair notice as to the
`basis of the claims against him or her, as distinguished from collective allegations ….” Id. at 1249-
`50 (emphasis in original). The Complaint comes nowhere near this standard.
`Plaintiff’s allegations against Truth North directly contradicted the aforementioned Tenth
`Circuit jurisprudence. With respect to a majority of these allegations, Plaintiff did not bother to
`distinguish True North’s actions from those of the other defendants. On the contrary, Plaintiff
`merely lumped each defendant together, and recited the basic elements of a civil conspiracy claim.
`These allegations lack any specificity, and therefore, deprive Truth North of fair notice of the basis
`of the claims asserted against it.
`
`Plaintiff Failed to Properly Allege a “Meeting of the Minds.”
`1.
`While paragraph 186 vaguely suggests that True North agreed with “various persons at the
`DAF” in order to “illegally obtain a cultivation license”, this claim is wholly unsupported by any
`specific facts. There are no allegations regarding (a) which individuals at True North and DAF
`made an agreement; (b) where the agreement was made; and most importantly, (c) the manner in
`which the agreement was to operate. “While it is not necessary to provide direct evidence of a
`formal agreement in order to demonstrate a meeting of the minds, ‘there must be substantial proof
`of circumstances from which it reasonably follows, or at least may be reasonably inferred, that the
`conspiracy existed.’” World Wide Assoc. of Specialty Programs v. Pure, Inc., 450 F.3d 1132, 1141
`(10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Israel Pagan Estate v. Cannon, 746 P.2d 785, 790 (Utah Ct. App. 1987)).
`“[C]onjecture and speculation alone are not sufficient to establish that the conspiracy existed.” Id.
`Plaintiff’s allegation that Truth North agreed with “various persons” at DAF is grossly
`deficient to establish, or even imply, that a meeting of the minds actually existed. Further, the
`suggestion that the agreement was to illegally obtain a cultivation license lacks any specificity. For
`example, there are no allegations that describe what acts anyone from True North agreed to
`perform in order to “illegally obtain” such a license. Put simply, it fails to state who specifically is
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.60 Page 11 of 14
`
`
`
`alleged to have done what to whom. This is precisely the type of conjecture that both the United
`States Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit held was legally insufficient to properly allege a civil
`conspiracy claim and thus avoid dismissal. Thus, these bare allegations did not meet the pleading
`standards required to properly allege that a meeting of the minds occurred, and this Court should
`dismiss them.
`
`Plaintiff Failed to Properly Allege an “Illegal, Overt Act.”
`2.
`Paragraph 188 described the alleged unlawful, overt acts it believes the defendants engaged
`in, as it related to the alleged conspiracy:
`
`
`The former Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture Standard Wellness
`and Scott Ericson illegally communicating with Department of Agriculture Evaluators
`to ensure that Standard Wellness obtained a license; Mr. Ericson, the Department of
`Agriculture, and the Evaluators setting up and applying a sub rosa system of evaluation
`contrary to statute that would ensure the selection of Standard Wellness; The
`Evaluators and Department of Agriculture Management setting up and applying a sub
`rosa system of evaluation contrary to statute each colluding in scoring to ensure the
`selection of favored applicants; Evaluators improperly communicating with applicants
`during the evaluation process; Evaluators and Procurement Board member Mark
`Anderson failing to disclose conflicts of interest with successful applicants while
`rendering decisions favoring their client/conflicts and which were detrimental to
`Plaintiff; the other members of the Procurement Board ratifying and acquiescing to the
`acts of Mr. Anderson when they joined in with him in denying Plaintiff’s Protest
`Appeal, in spite of this clear conflict of interest; Department Commissioner Kerry
`Gibson meeting with a successful applicant during the application process; among
`others.
`(Dkt. No. 2 at ¶ 188). True North is nowhere in this. Not one of these examples included any
`actions taken by any representatives of True North. See Montgomery, 365 F.3d at 940 (finding that
`the plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim was deficient because he “merely alleged many unlawful acts
`by various defendants and stated, without any specific facts evincing an agreement among the
`various defendants, that they conspired against him.”)
`Among the purportedly unlawful, overt acts alleged in the Complaint, none include any
`specific examples in which True North improperly influenced or manipulated the selection
`process, or that they “illegally colluded” without anyone to obtain a cultivation license. The mere
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.61 Page 12 of 14
`
`
`
`allegation that some individuals appeared on a photograph (Dkt. No. 2 at ¶ 186) does not support
`Plaintiff’s claim that a meeting of the minds occurred or that True North committed an unlawful,
`overt act. Again, Plaintiff failed to include any specific facts that suggest where the meeting
`occurred, what was discussed, what agreement was made (if any), and whether there was indeed
`an unlawful, overt act. Thus, these “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” do
`not state a claim, and this Court should dismiss the Sixth Cause of Action.
`III. ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD ORDER A MORE DEFINITE
`STATEMENT
`Dismissal is appropriate. If this Court is inclined to provide another opportunity to Plaintiff
`to allege, now, a factual basis for any claims against True North, True North alternatively requests
`the Court order Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of its claim. Rule 12(e) provides that
`“[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is
`allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”
`As described above, Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to provide factual allegations to provide True
`North with fair notice regarding the nature of Plaintiff’s claims against it—such as who from True
`North and any other entity had a “meeting of the minds” and who from True North committed an
`unlawful, over act. See Sposi v. Santa Clara City, Utah, No. 2:17-cv-1057-CW, 2018 WL
`1578038, at *1 (D. Utah Mar. 27, 2018) (“Pleadings are meant to provide a party fair notice about
`the nature of a claim.”); Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Dell, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-64-TS, 2008
`200340, at *1 (D. Utah Jan. 22, 2008) (granting a motion for more definite statement because the
`complaint left the moving party “in the dark without a specific allegation of which of their products
`[allegedly infringed on a patent]”). This is the bare minimum this Court should order.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons stated above, this Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action
`against True North for failing to plead a civil conspiracy claim with particularity a under Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 9(b) and for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.62 Page 13 of 14
`
`
`
`12(b)(6). Alternatively, True North this Court should order Plaintiff to provide a more definite
`statement regarding its one and only claim against True North.
`DATED: August 5, 2021.
`
`SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark O. Morris
`Mark O. Morris
`True North of Utah, LLC
`Attorney for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-TS-DAO Document 5 Filed 08/05/21 PageID.63 Page 14 of 14
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 5th day of August, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing MOTION TO DISMISS was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court and served
`
`on the following using the Court’s electronic filing system:
`
`Jason M. Kerr (8222)
`Steven Garff (13707)
`PRICE, PARKINSON & KERR
`5742 W. Harold Gatty Drive
`Salt Lake City, UT 84116
`Telephone: (801) 517-7088
`E-mail: jasonkerr@ppktrial.com
`
`stevengarff@ppktrial.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`Mark O. Morris
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket