12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Opposition, and on December 6, 2010, Defendants filed their Reply.The Court finds this Motion appropriate for resolution without oralargument and
the hearing set for December 20, 2010. Fed. R.Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons below, the Motion is
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background of this case is set forth at length in theCourt’s September 20, 2010 Order (“Order,” docket no. 51) onDefendants’ first Motion to Dismiss. Therein, the Court dismissedcertain of Plaintiff’s claims with leave to amend. On October 12,2010, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) amending itsclaims under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.(“UCL”) for unfair conduct and unlawful conduct, claims 2 and 3respectively. In the instant Motion, Defendants argue that these re-pled claims must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) becausePlaintiff lacks standing to bring them and, in the alternative, thatthe unfair conduct claim is otherwise inadequately pled. Defendantsalso move in the alternative, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), to strikePlaintiff’s prayer for restitution.
II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
The Supreme Court has recently clarified the level of pleadingnecessary to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). SeeAshcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950–52 (2009);Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557–58 (2007). Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of2
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC -CW Document 68 Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:681