United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge
Michael Phillip Patrakis is incarcerated at the Federal
Detention Center-Honolulu (“FDC”). 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.
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
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
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., ...