United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ROBERT MEEKER and AMY MEEKER, individually, the marital community comprised thereof, and on behalf of C.M., a minor, Plaintiffs,
STARFISH CHILDREN'S SERVICES, PATRICK McLAUGHLIN and CYNTHIA McLAUGHLIN and the marital community comprised thereof, MICHAEL BOSMANN and LISA ANN BOSMANN and the marital community comprised thereof, and JANE DOES 1-2, Defendants.
Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Defendants Michael and Lisa
Ann Bosmann's motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 20. Plaintiffs do
not oppose the motion as to Ms. Bosmann but do so as to Mr.
Bosmann. Dkt. # 25. Therefore, the Court
GRANTS the motion as to Ms. Bosmann and
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion
as to Mr. Bosmann.
following is taken from Plaintiffs' Complaint, which is
assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion to
dismiss. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th
adopted C.M. from a foster home in China run by Starfish
Children's Services (“Starfish”). See
generally Dkt. # 1 (Complaint). Plaintiffs learned that
C.M. suffered from spina bifida, which “limited her
physical, cognitive, behavioral, and social abilities.”
Id. at ¶ 3.03. Plaintiffs were familiar with
adopting children with special needs, and therefore were not
dissuaded from adopting C.M. with knowledge of her spina
bifida. Id. However, upon arriving in China to pick
up C.M. and bring her home to the U.S., Plaintiffs realized
that C.M. might have medical issues beyond the spina bifida.
Id. at ¶ 3.04.
sought information from Starfish to learn the extent of
C.M.'s health issues but received few answers.
Id. at ¶ 3.07. After engaging several health
practitioners, Plaintiffs were informed that C.M. suffered
from epilepsy, severely rotten teeth, hydrocephalus, cerebral
palsy, scoliosis, brain cerebella dysplasia, self-harm,
blindness, deafness, sleep troubles, and hepatitis C.
Id. Plaintiffs soon learned that C.M. would have a
much shorter lifespan than they were prepared to accept.
allege that Starfish was aware of C.M.'s health issues
beyond the spina bifida but chose not to disclose the
information to Plaintiffs for fear that Plaintiffs would
decide against adopting C.M. Id. at ¶¶
3.08, 3.17-3.19. Plaintiffs have already incurred more than
$500, 000 in medical bills to treat C.M. and expect more
bills in the future. Id. at ¶ 3.24.
March 2017, Plaintiffs sued Starfish and its Board of
Directors for various claims arising out of fraud and
misrepresentations. See Id. The Bosmanns-Mr. Bosmann
was a member of Starfish's Board-are now before the Court
seeking dismissal of the claims asserted against them.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to
assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations
and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those
allegations. Sanders, 504 F.3d at 910. A court
“need not accept as true conclusory allegations that
are contradicted by documents referred to in the
complaint.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The
plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568
(2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint avoids
dismissal if there is “any set of facts consistent with
the allegations in the complaint” that would entitle
the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563; Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of
the complaint, although it may rely on a document to which
the complaint refers if the document is central to the
party's claims and its authenticity is not in question.
Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006).
A court may also consider evidence subject to judicial
notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908
(9th Cir. 2003).
plead seven causes of action in their Complaint. Dkt. # 1
(Complaint) at ¶¶ 4.01-4.35. The Court will analyze
the claims in turn below.
Choice of Law
bring a wrongful adoption claim, arguing that Defendants
induced them into adopting C.M., causing them to incur
significant monetary losses. Dkt. # 1 (Complaint) at
¶¶ 4.01-4.06. Mr. Bosmann first argues that Texas
law governs this claim, and because Texas does not recognize
a wrongful adoption cause of action, this claim fails. Dkt. #
20 at 6. ...