(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This standard represents a balance between Rule 8’s roots in relatively liberal notice pleading and the need to prevent “a plaintiff with a largely groundless claim” from “‘tak[ing] up the time of a number of other people, with the right to do so representing an in terrorem increment of settlement value.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557–58 (quoting Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347 (2005)).
Advancing several different theories, Plaintiffs allege that Arizona’s Secretary of State and Governor conspired with various domestic and international actors to manipulate Arizona’s 2020 General Election results allowing Joseph Biden to defeat Donald Trump in the presidential race. The allegations they put forth to support their claims of fraud fail in their particularity and plausibility. Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume. The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections. Because the Complaint is grounded in these fraud allegations, the Complaint shall be dismissed. Vess, 317 F.3d at 1107 (“When an entire complaint, or an entire claim within a complaint, is grounded in fraud and its allegations fail to satisfy the heightened pleadings requirements of Rule 9(b), a district court may dismiss the complaint or claim.”).
Plaintiffs first “describe specific violations of Arizona law” to support their fraud claims.[1] In doing so, they attach declarations from poll watchers that observed election officials during the November General Election. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 46–53). As Intervenor-Defendant Maricopa County points out, these are the only declarants offered by Plaintiffs with first-hand observation of the election administration. (Doc. 36 at 4). But these four declarants do not allege fraud at all. (See Doc. 1-10 at 18–24). Instead, they raise objections to the manner and process by which Arizona election officials matched signatures on absentee ballots (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 46–48); to the process and role assigned to poll
- ↑ Plaintiffs’ often scattershot pleadings allege that “Defendants failed to administer the November 3, 2020 election in compliance with the manner prescribed by the Georgia legislature.” (Doc 2 at 6) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs also nonsensically include references to Wisconsin state statutes. (Doc. 1 at 33).
- 24 -
