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.

Patrakis v. Nest Labs

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

October 19, 2017

MICHAEL PHILLIP PATRAKIS, #08431-122, Plaintiff,
v.
NEST LABS and TONY FADELL, Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)

          Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Michael Phillip Patrakis is incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center-Honolulu (“FDC”).[1] He alleges this Court has diversity jurisdiction over his breach of contract and negligence claims against Defendants Nest Labs and its Chief Executive Officer, Tony Fadell, who are alleged to be citizens of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Compl., ECF. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a home video surveillance system from Defendants, who failed to prevent an unauthorized user from accessing this system on or about September 16, 2015, resulting in the loss of more than $75, 000 in personal property and his “freedom.” ECF No. 1, PageID #4.

         For the following reasons, Patrakis's Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for the failure to state a plausible claim for relief, with leave granted to amend.

         I. STATUTORY SCREENING

         Because Patrakis is a prisoner and is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must dismiss a complaint or claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune from suit. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

         Screening under § 1915(e)(2) involves the same standard of review as that used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Under Rule 12(b)(6), 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id., 556 U.S. at 678.

         Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or an “unadorned, the defendant- unlawfully-harmed me accusation” falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

         Pro se litigants' pleadings must be liberally construed and all doubts should be resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Leave to amend must be granted if it appears the plaintiff can correct the defects in the complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

         II. DISCUSSION

         Patrakis's statement of facts reads:

On September 16, 2015 I called a Nest Cam representive [sic] that stated Nest Cam was unable to transfer my account back to me due to my account being linked to an email address of an unauthorized user that I did not give consent to at any given moment to discuss or transfer my Nest Cam account to anyone at any point and time. Due to this Breach of Contract and neglience [sic] of Nest Cam the damages are severe and unexcusable [sic]. I was very clear in explaing [sic] the detail of information and what I expected as a paying customer for over one year. I feel that all of this could have and should have been avoided by tansfering [sic] my account back to me as I requested on Wednesday evening of September 16, 2015. By Nest Cam unwilling to transfer my account back to me I have lost everything from my home and all personal belongings and my freedom. In which I am seeking all lost to be compensated.

ECF No. 1, PageID #4. Patrakis seeks $15 million for breach of contract and negligence, alleging “character defamation, emotional distress, pain and suffering, and imprisonment.” See id., PageID #5.

         A. Breach of Contract

Generally, a breach of contract claim must set forth (1) the contract at issue; (2) the parties to the contract; (3) whether plaintiff performed under the contract; (4) the particular provision of the contract allegedly violated by defendants; and (5) when and how defendants allegedly breached the contract. See Evergreen Eng'rg, Inc. v. Green Energy Team LLC, 884 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1059 (D. Haw. 2012); see also Otani v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 927 F.Supp. 1330, 1335 (D. Haw. 1996) (“In breach of contract actions . . . the complaint must, at minimum, cite the contractual provision allegedly violated. Generalized allegations of a contractual breach are not sufficient . . . the complaint must specify what provisions of the contract have been breached to state a viable claim for relief under contract law.”); Kaar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., ...

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.