Steinbring v. Unknown Party

1 WO — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA — 8 — 9 Chelsea B Steinbring, No. CV-25-00500-TUC-JCH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Unknown Party, 13 Defendant. — 14 — 15 On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff Chelsea Steinbring filed a Complaint against “John 16 Doe (Unknown Scammer),” purporting to bring claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , the wire 17 fraud statute, and 18 U.S.C. § 1030 , the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Doc. 1. Plaintiff 18 alleges that “[o]n July 16th 2025 Plaintiff was contacted through Whatsup App [sic] 19 messaging application from a telephone number registered to T-Mobile. The individual 20 misrepresented themselves and persuaded Plaintiff to initiate a financial transfer under 21 false pretenses.” Doc. 1 at 4. Plaintiff provides no other facts to support her Complaint. For 22 the following reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend.1 23 I. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) 24 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), “in alleging fraud or mistake, a party 25 must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, 26 knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Rule 9(b) 27 1 “A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986 , 991 (9th Cir. 1987). Dismissal 28 under Rule 9(b) is the “functional equivalent” of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 , 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 requires “that the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud ‘be specific enough to give 2 defendants notice of the particular misconduct.’” Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 3 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014 , 1019 (9th Cir. 4 2001)). Specifically, “[a]verments of fraud must be accompanied by ‘the who, what, when, 5 where, and how’ of the misconduct charged.” Vess, 317 F.3d at 1106 (quoting Cooper v. 6 Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th Cir. 1997)). “To satisfy this standard, a plaintiff asserting 7 fraud-based claims ‘must set forth what is false or misleading about [the defendant's] 8 statement[s], and why [they are] false.’” Bodenburg v. Apple Inc., 146 F.4th 761 , 771 9 (9th Cir. 2025) (alterations in original) (quoting Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., — 10 — 945 F.3d 1225 , 1228 (9th Cir. 2019)). The purpose of the particularity requirement is, in 11 part, to “prohibit plaintiffs from unilaterally imposing upon the court, the parties and 12 society enormous social and economic costs absent some factual basis.” In re Stac Elecs. 13 Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1405 (9th Cir. 1996). 14 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not comply with Rule 9(b). Plaintiff alleges an unknown 15 individual “misrepresented themselves and persuaded Plaintiff to initiate a financial 16 transfer under false pretenses,” but she explains nothing more. Without more, the Court 17 cannot discern what was false or misleading about Defendant’s statements, why they were 18 false, or who perpetrated the fraud. See Bodenburg, 146 F.4th at 771 (reasoning the 19 plaintiff could not “point to any statements in the Agreement that [were] truly deceptive” 20 or “set forth facts showing that [the allegedly ambiguous and misleading] statements [were] 21 false”); United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161, 1180 (9th Cir. 2016) 22 (quotations omitted) (“mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient” to meet Rule 23 9(b)’s requirements). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, and the Court will 24 dismiss her Complaint. See Vess, 317 F.3d at 1107 (“When an entire complaint, or an entire 25 claim within a complaint, is grounded in fraud and its allegations fail to satisfy the 26 heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), a district court may dismiss the complaint 27 or claim.”). 28 /// 1 II. Warnings 2 Though the Court will grant leave to amend to remedy the Complaint’s 3 shortcomings under Rule 9(b), there are other problems Plaintiff should address should she 4 choose to amend her Complaint. 5 First, Plaintiff purports to bring her claims under two criminal statutes: 18 U.S.C. 6 § 1343 and 18 U.S.C. § 1030 . Generally, a private individual may not sue someone for 7 violation of a criminal statute, including the wire fraud statute. See, e.g., Aldabe v. Aldabe, — 8 — 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The Complaint contains no reference to any other 9 federal statute and, accordingly, has not properly alleged a cause of action arising from 10 federal law. See generally Doc. 1. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a common 11 law fraud claim, there is no federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . Plaintiff 12 has not alleged, nor does her Complaint establish, that the Court has diversity jurisdiction.2 13 If Plaintiff cannot establish subject matter jurisdiction—whether via a federal question or 14 diversity—the Court will not be able to exercise power over this case. Leite v. Crane Co., — 15 — 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a 16 preponderance of the evidence that each of the requirements for subject-matter jurisdiction 17 has been met.”). Plaintiff should consider whether her case belongs in state court or 18 whether to report the case to law enforcement if she has not already done so. 19 It is also unclear that the Court will be able to provide Plaintiff with the relief she 20 seeks. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 4, 2025, and has yet to submit a summons 21 or serve Defendant. See generally Docket. This is almost certainly because Defendant is 22 an unidentified individual. See Stallings v. Unknown Party, 2021 WL 4458883 , No. 2123 CV-1328-PHX, at * 4–5 (D. Ariz. Sep. 28, 2021) (“As a practical matter, it is impossible 24 in most instances . . . to serve a summons and complaint . . . upon an anonymous 25 defendant.”). In the Ninth Circuit, “the use of ‘John Doe’ to identify a defendant [generally] 26 2 To establish diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, and there must be complete diversity among the parties (i.e., Plaintiff must be a citizen of a 27 different state than all defendants). Plaintiff’s Complaint requests $65,000 in damages, and because Defendant is an unknown person, it is unclear whether complete diversity exists. 28 If Plaintiff cannot establish diversity jurisdiction, a common law fraud claim belongs in state court. is not favored.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). But in || circumstances where some defendants’ identities may be unknown, “the plaintiff should || be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants.” Id. The □□ problem is that this principle is usually applicable when there are other known parties to 5 || the lawsuit. See id. (finding error where the district court did not require named defendants 6|| to reply to plaintiff's interrogatories requesting information about the unknown || defendants). Here, because there are no named defendants and thus no one to serve, a 8 || complaint alone will not allow this action to move forward. Omni Capital Int'l □□□ Rudolf 9|| Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal || jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be 11 || satisfied.”), superseded by statute on other grounds, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 12 Plaintiff should consider the above warnings in deciding whether to amend her 13 || Complaint. If she does choose to amend, Plaintiff should follow the guidelines on the courtapproved form for filing a civil complaint. Should Plaintiff seek to bring multiple counts, 15 || she should clearly designate each claim in a separate paragraph. Plaintiff must make clear 16 || what her cause(s) of action are and how Defendant’s alleged conduct is wrongful under || each cited statute. 18} I. Order 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1). || Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies outlined above. 23 Dated this 8th day of October, 2025. — 24 — 25 f fy . | HK Aa— / / John C. Hinderaker _/United States District Judge — 28 — -4-