Benedict v. Held

KEVIN SCOTT BENEDICT, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD LOREN HELD, an individual, MATTHEW WILSON, an individual,UNITY IN LYNNWOOD, a non-profit organization, Defendants.

No. 3:19-cv-01295-HZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

February 7, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

Kevin Scott Benedict

P.O. Box 655

Troutdale, OR 97060

Pro Se Plaintiff

John R. Barhoum

Jeffrey W. Hansen

CHOCK BARHOUM LLP

121 SW Morrison St., Suite 415

Portland, OR 97204

Attorneys for Defendants

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Pro se Plaintiff Kevin Scott Benedict brings this action alleging breach of contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Richard Loren Held, Matthew Wilson, and Unity in Lynnwood. Defendants move to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Unity in Lynnwood ("Unity") is a community church in Lynnwood, Washington. Am. Compl. 2, ECF 30; Defs.' Mot. 3, ECF 31. Defendant Held is the Senior Minister at Unity and is also a member of Unity's Board of Directors. Am. Compl. 2; Defs.' Mot. 3. Defendant Wilson is the Office Manager and Music Director at Unity. Am. Compl. 2; Defs.' Mot. 3.

Plaintiff and his son Corwin Benedict became members of Unity in or around 2013 or 2014. Am. Compl. 2. Plaintiff asserts that to become a member of Unity he entered into a written contract with Defendants that afforded him certain rights and privileges subject to Unity's bylaws in exchange for donating and volunteering his "money, time and support." Id. Among these benefits was the right to address disputes with the Unity Board of Directors prior to revocation of membership status. Id. at 4.

Plaintiff additionally alleges the existence of an oral contract between him and Defendant Held in which Held agreed to assist Plaintiff with producing, marketing, and distributing a concert DVD of Plaintiff's original music in exchange for Plaintiff's promotion of Unity while performing the concert on a national tour. Id. at 5. Plaintiff asserts that prior to performance ofthe tour, Defendants breached their contract by "produc[ing] inadequate promotional material [for the concert]," by placing a promotional flyer "behind a doorway where it could not be seen," and by failing to "place the DVD and CD in prominent positions in the [Unity] bookstore." Id. at 6. Plaintiff also "delayed [the] national tour to care for [his] father . . . during the last 10 months of his life" and asserts that Held prevented him from completing the tour after his father passed away. Id. at 10.

Sometime during the ten-month period in which Plaintiff cared for his father, Unity revoked both Plaintiff and his son's memberships for reasons unstated by either of the parties. Id. at 6-8. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Held falsely stated that he had his membership rescinded "for cause," and he was not afforded the opportunity to contest the revocation of his and his son's memberships contrary to the membership agreement and Unity's bylaws. Id. at 4-5.

Plaintiff additionally alleges that Defendants defamed Plaintiff and committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") when Defendants disallowed Plaintiff and his son to return to Unity, refused to answer Plaintiff's requests for more information concerning the termination of their memberships, and requested that employees and members of the Unity community no longer speak to Plaintiff or his son. Id. at 6-8.

Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on May 8, 2020, alleging that Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiff, defamed Plaintiff, and intentionally subjected Plaintiff to emotional distress. Id. at 4-8.¹ Plaintiff seeks damages for lost income as well as pain and suffering associated with his removal from Unity. Id. at 9-11. Currently before the Court isDefendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defs.' Mot. 2.

STANDARDS

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the claims. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). When evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the court must accept all material facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted if a plaintiff alleges the "grounds" of his "entitlement to relief" with nothing "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action[.]" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)[.]" Id. (citations and footnote omitted).

To survive a motion to dismiss, 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). A plaintiff must "plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. In other words, a complaint must state a plausible claim for relief and contain "well-pleaded facts" that "permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct[.]" Id. at 679.

Courts must liberally construe pro se pleadings. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, a court cannot dismiss a pro se complaint without first explaining to the plaintiff the deficiencies of the complaint and providing an opportunity to amend. Ferdikv. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff does not specify whether he is bringing his claims under Oregon or Washington law. "The threshold question in a choice-of-law problem is whether the laws of the different states actually conflict." Great Am. All. Ins. Co. v. SIR Columbia Knoll Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 416 F. Supp. 3d 1098, 1102 (D. Or. 2019) (quoting Spirit Partners, LP v. Stoel Rives LLP, 212 Or. App. 295, 301 (2007)). Because there are no substantive conflicts between Oregon and Washington law in regard to Plaintiff's breach of contract and tort claims, Oregon law is appropriately applied here. See Or. Rev. Stat. § ("O.R.S.") 15.360(2) (stating "[t]o the extent that an effective choice of law has not been made by the parties . . . with regard to an issue in a contract . . . [t]he most appropriate law is determined by . . . [i]dentifying the policies underlying any apparently conflicting laws of these states that are relevant to the issue); O.R.S. 15.440(2)(b) (stating that, in regard to noncontractual claims between "persons domiciled in different states[,] [the parties] shall be treated as if domiciled in the same state to the extent that laws of those states on the disputed issues would produce the same outcome.").

I. Breach of Membership Agreement

Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claim against all Defendants. Am. Compl. 4. To plead a breach of contract claim under Oregon law, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) its relevant terms; (3) the plaintiff's full performance and lack of breach; and (4) thedefendant's breach resulting in damage to the plaintiff. Schmelzer v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. CV-10-1445-HZ, 2011 WL 5873058, at *4 (D. Or. Nov. 21, 2011) (citing Slover v. Or. State Bd. Of Clinical Soc. Workers, 144 Or. App. 565, 570-71 (1996)).

While Plaintiff has pleaded the existence of a contract between himself and Unity, he has failed to allege facts that allow a reasonable inference of his full performance and lack of breach of that contract. For example, Plaintiff states that he donated his "money, time and support" to Unity during the years that he was a member, however, it is unclear whether doing so amounted to Plaintiff's full performance of the contract. Am. Compl. 2. Similarly, while Plaintiff states that Defendant Held falsely asserted that his membership had been terminated "for cause," Plaintiff does not expressly allege that he did not breach the contract. Id. at 4-5. Subsequently, absent additional information demonstrating Plaintiff's full performance and lack of breach, Plaintiff has not sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of contract.

II. Breach of Oral Contract

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of oral contract claim on the basis that the terms of the oral contract alleged in the Amended Complaint are not sufficiently definite to be enforced. Defs.' Mot. 7, 12-13.

The party asserting breach bears the burden of proving the existence of an enforceable contract in the first instance. Holdner v. Holdner, 176 Or. App. 111, 120 (2001). In general, a contract may be oral or written. Ponderosa Props., LLC v. Emp't Dep't, 262 Or. App. 419, 435 (2014). When "determining whether a contract exists and what its terms are," the court "examine[s] the parties' objective manifestations of intent, as evidenced by their communications and acts." Ken Hood Constr. Co. v. Pac. Coast Constr., Inc., 201 Or. App. 568, 578 (2005). "If the parties' communications and actions manifest assent to be bound bypromises, they will form a contract unless the promises are 'so indefinite that a court cannot determine what the parties intended.'" Wieck v. Hostetter, 274 Or....