Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye

Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

December 15, 2021, Decided; December 16, 2021, Filed, December 17, 2021, Filed

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00461-BEN-AHG

Opinion

ORDER DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER FRYE'S MOTION TO DISMISS

[ECF Nos, 19, 23, 24]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff INDIAN HILLS HOLDINGS, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Plaintiff' or "IHH") alleges that Defendants CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN PROFESSIONALS CORP., an Arizona corporation ("CDP"), and CHRISTOPHER FRYE, an individual and the owner of CDP ("Mr. Frye") (collectively, "Defendants") took Plaintiff's money in exchange for promising to provide Plaintiff with goods. See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). However, even though Plaintiff sent Defendants the money, Plaintiff never received the goods, and Defendants have not refunded Plaintiff's money. Id.

Before the Court is Mr. Frye's Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion"). ECF No. 19. The Motion was submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 24. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court DENIES-IN-PART Mr. Frye's Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

This case involves [*2]  a tripartite relationship pursuant to which IHH paid Defendants to purchase Cultivation "Adult" Extreme Cubes (the "Cubes"),1 and Defendants, in turn, contracted with ICT Centurion Investments, LLC, a suspended Colorado limited liability company ("ICT")2, to sell Defendants the Cubes it planned to sell to Plaintiff Motion, ECF No. 15 ("Mot.") at 2:4-14. When ICT rescinded its contract with Defendants and sold the Cubes to another party, Defendants were unable to deliver the Cubes to Plaintiff but refused to refund the amount Plaintiff had already paid. Id.

A more detailed factual history was included in the Court's most recent order on Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment and is incorporated herein. See Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Christopher Frye, No. 3:20-cv-00461-BEN-AHG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222410, 2021 WL 5360956, at *2-5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 241821 *; 2021 WL 5994036

INDIAN HILLS HOLDINGS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER FRYE, an individual; CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, CORP., an Arizona domestic for profit (business) corporation, Defendant.

Prior History: Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye, 337 F.R.D. 293, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217052, 2020 WL 6802310 (S.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2020)

CORE TERMS

arbitration, motion to dismiss, parties, Cubes, marijuana, courts, unjust enrichment, claim for relief, allegations, breach of contract, federal court, federal law, cultivation, pleads, arbitration agreement, Default, argues, fraud claim, initialed, medical marijuana, district court, misrepresentation, Cannabis, subject matter jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, amount in controversy, arbitration provision, obligations, quotations, lack of subject matter jurisdiction