jon motion to dismiss 9 18 13.pdf


Preview of PDF document jon-motion-to-dismiss-9-18-13.pdf

Page 1...6 7 891026

Text preview


Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 3-2 Filed 09/18/13 Page 8 of 26

another’s behalf, hacked into Kate Gosselin’s various accounts and disseminated the illegally
obtained information.” Compl. ¶ 31.
As in Smith, the Complaint offers only conclusory allegations and has not made any
factual averments that any specific computers or communications were accessed or intercepted,
see id. at *11, which are vital allegations for the claims pleaded in the Complaint. This is
exacerbated frequent “information and belief” allegations demonstrating Plaintiff is speculating.
Perhaps most telling of all, however, is the allegation “Hoffman falsely claimed in certain
publications that he recovered the data from Kate’s computer by digging through her trash that
he found on the street. . . . The materials in his possession could not possibly be physically found
in paper format to that extent. If Hoffman was picking through trash on the street, he did not find
this trove of personal information while engaging in his trash-picking endeavors.” Compl. ¶ 30.
This is not a factual allegation. This is rationalization. This is conjecture. This is speculation—as
to why it had to be hacking—because how else could it have happened, right? Or, is there a more
plausible alternative explanation?
“Plaintiff has alleged in effect is the mere possibility of liability, but not plausible
liability strong enough to nudge the claim across the line from conceivable to plausible. Absent
facts to support [her] speculation, [s]he is not entitled to discovery to see what [s]he may find.
Plaintiff is not entitled to relief” and Defendant’s Motion should be granted. Smith v. Trusted
Universal Standards In Elec. Transactions, Inc., 2010 WL 1799456, at *11 (D.N.J. May 4,
2010). Plaintiff’s claims are pure speculation, a fishing expedition, and should be treated as such.
3.

A complaint premised upon allegations made upon information and belief,
without real factual support, will not survive a motion to dismiss.

Allegations made upon information and belief, without factual support, do not allow the
court “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,”
Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009), and thus do not show that
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

PAGE 8