Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Samberg v. Detroit Water & Sewer Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

May 5, 2015

Robert Samberg, Plaintiff,
v.
Detroit Water & Sewer Company, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [9]

JUDITH E. LEVY, District Judge.

Robert Samberg files this complaint against the Detroit Water & Sewer Company (the "DWSD").[1] The case arises out of defendant's tender offer to buy back bonds and plaintiff's allegation that defendant withheld material information until after plaintiff was required to make his decision. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff brings claims of (1) fraud, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Id.)

Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant argues that the case should be dismissed because plaintiff has failed to state an actionable claim upon which relief could be granted. (Dkt. 9.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss.

I. Facts

Plaintiff held bonds with the DWSD. On some unspecified date, the DWSD made a tender offer to buy back their bonds and gave all the bondholders until April 21, 2014, to act on the offer. (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff's personal broker required that plaintiff provide the broker with a response to this offer by April 20, 2014. (Id.) After plaintiff informed his broker of his decision to accept the tender offer but before the close of the April 21 deadline, the DWSD released additional information that affected the value of the bonds. Plaintiff alleges that this newly released information was "[c]ritical information affecting [his] decision" and that he would not have accepted the offer to tender his bonds had the information been provided sooner. (Id. at ¶ 3.) As a result of this information being released after his broker's deadline, plaintiff alleges that he tendered his bonds "at a significant loss." (Id. at ¶ 11.)

II. Legal Standard

When deciding a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court must "construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all allegations as true." Keys v. Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605, 608 (6th Cir.2012). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a 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). A plausible claim need not contain "detailed factual allegations, " but it must contain more than "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action[.]" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

A pro se complaint, such as this one, is entitled to a liberal construction and "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted).

III. Analysis

Defendant argues that all of plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Dkt. 9 at 5.)

Plaintiff has failed to identify any action taken by defendant that could be construed as fraudulent, negligent, or that could lead to plaintiff suffering from emotional distress. Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to Samberg, the following is alleged: (1) the defendant issued an offer to tender bonds, (2) the defendant's deadline to respond to the offer was April 21, 2015, and (3) after plaintiff provided a response in compliance with his personal broker's deadline, defendant released additional information that affected the value of the bonds. (Dkt. 1.)

A. Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation

With respect to plaintiff's fraud claim, the complaint states that defendant "made misrepresentations of fact" to defendant. (Dkt. 1 at 5-8.) Apart from these conclusory allegations, plaintiff's complaint fails to allege any specific fraudulent actions on the part of defendant. As required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), plaintiff does not allege who made the fraudulent statements or omissions, what those statements were, when they were made, or how he relied on them. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b); Frank v. Dana Corp., 547 F.3d 564, 569-70 (6th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). At a minimum, plaintiff "must allege the time, place and contents of the misrepresentations upon which they relied." Id. This threshold is not met by plaintiff's complaint.

Even granting plaintiff a more liberal construction of his pro se complaint, and even if he were granted leave to amend it, his claims would still not survive defendant's motion to dismiss. Under Michigan law a fraudulent misrepresentation claim requires a showing that the defendant made a material misrepresentation that was known to be false. Hi-Way Motor Co. v. Int'l Harvester Co., 398 Mich. 330, 247 N.W.2d 813, 816 (Mich.1976). Similarly, a negligent misrepresentation claim requires an allegation that defendant ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.