election, such relief would necessarily run afoul of 3 U.S.C. § 6 by ignoring Arizona law. In this instance, the Court cannot allow Plaintiffs to circumvent both federal and Arizona law.
Because this Court cannot de-certify the results, it would be meaningless to grant Plaintiffs any of the remaining relief they seek. See Wood v. Raffensperger, 2020 WL 7094866, at *6 (11th Cir. Dec. 5, 2020) (“[I]t is not possible for us to delay certification nor meaningful to order a new recount when the results are already final and certified.”); King, 2020 WL 7134198, at *5 n.3 (“[T]he evidence Plaintiffs seek to gather by inspecting voting machines and software and security camera footage only would be useful if an avenue remained open for them to challenge the election results.”). Plaintiffs’ claims are moot.
- F. Failure to State a Claim
“A motion to dismiss a complaint or claim ‘grounded in fraud’ under Rule 9(b)[1] for failure to plead with particularity is the functional equivalent of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.” Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). In a Rule 12(b)(6) context, courts must consider all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and interpret them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Schlegal v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 720 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 2013). Dismissal is proper when there is either (1) a lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, Blasquez v. Salazar, 565 U.S. 1261 (2012).
When pleading allegations concerning fraudulent conduct, Rule 9(b) requires something more than Rule 8: particularity. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009);
- ↑ Although Plaintiffs strenuously argue that they can bring their Arizona election law-based claims in federal court because of the presence of federal allegations, they also boldly assert in their Reply that they need not follow the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) in pleading their fraud claims with particularity, because the federal rules are somehow abrogated by “controlling Arizona Supreme Court precedent.15” (Doc. 44 at 23). Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways. Plaintiffs have not provided any authority that a state court decision can alter the pleading requirements in federal court established by United States Supreme Court precedent and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- 22 -
