. Relator has clarified that “ALLEGATIONS AFTER 2008 ARE NOT FALSE CLAIMS,” but instead “foundational” to explain how alleged contract deviations Case 2:06-cv-03614-ODW-FMO Document 154 Filed 07/19/16 Page 15 of 29 Page ID #:3317 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 RAYTHEON’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 8, 9, 10, AND 12(b)(6) “have caused degradation and failure of NPOESS VIIRS in space today.” Dkt. 116 at 23:13-19.

, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed, with prejudice. Hon. Juan R. Sanchez 1 On May 26, 2017, this Court Ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint that met the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 on or before June 9, 2017. On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed what she captioned as “Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement.”

In other words, the defendant makes restitution to the plaintiff in quantum meruit. Ne. Fence & Iron Works, Inc., 933 A.2d at 668–69, citing Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 34 (Pa. Super. 2006), quoting AmeriPro Search, Inc. v. Fleming Steel Company, 787 A.2d 988, 991 (Pa. Super. 2001). In this case and for the reasons stated above relating to the lack of any breach of contract claim (incorporated herein by reference pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 10(c)), defendant Allen Branch clearly does not assert facts to demonstrate that Red Star or Mr. Polao secured any benefit or payment from any alleged transaction to which Allen Branch vaguely claims to have “assimilated and provided current financial information” (Second Amended Counterclaim at 15, ¶4).21 In fact, in his Amended Answer (Doc 123) at 4, ¶32, Allen Branch specifically asserts that Red Star (not Mr. Polao) never issued any loan commitment to “Allen Branch or Renaissance, or 21

In other words, the defendant makes restitution to the plaintiff in quantum meruit. Ne. Fence & Iron Works, Inc., 933 A.2d at 668–69, citing Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 34 (Pa. Super. 2006), quoting AmeriPro Search, Inc. v. Fleming Steel Company, 787 A.2d 988, 991 (Pa. Super. 2001). Case 2:15-cv-06757-WB Document 118-1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 11 of 15 12 In this case and for the reasons stated above relating to the lack of any breach of contract claim (incorporated herein by reference pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 10(c)), defendant Allen Branch clearly does not assert facts to demonstrate that Red Star or Mr. Polao secured any benefit or payment from any alleged transaction to which Allen Branch vaguely claims to have “assimilated and provided current financial information” (Amended Counterclaim at 15, ¶4).21 In fact, in his Amended Answer (Doc 114) at 4, ¶32, Allen Branch specifically asserts that Red Star (not Mr. Polao) never issued any loan commitment to “Allen Branch or Renaissance, or to anyone for that matter.”

V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss or strike Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 10(a), and require Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint using her real name. Dated: July 12, 2016 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. By: /s/ Nicole M. Shaffer Samantha N. Hoffman Nicole M. Shaffer Attorneys for Defendant INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION 4820-3081-8868, v. 2 Case 2:16-cv-04914-JPR Document 7 Filed 07/12/16 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:156 Case No.: 2:16-CV-4914 JPR 1 DECLARATION OF NICOLE SHAFFER ISO MTN TO DISMISS AND/OR STRIKE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In the instant case, Plaintiff incorporates Count I (Paragraphs 9-26) into Counts II-VII; Count II (Paragraphs 27-33) into Counts III-VII; Count III (Paragraphs 34-38) into Counts IV-VII; Count IV (Paragraphs 39-43) into Counts V-VII; Count V (Paragraphs 44- 53) into Counts VI-VII; and Count VI (Paragraphs 54-55) into Count VII. The Court should dismiss the Complaint because Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

This Amended Complaint is also in violation of FRCP 10(b) as it does not state each claim in separately numbered paragraphs. Rather, it improperly groups defendants, and allegations, and ideas into the same paragraphs. Finally, the Amended Complaint improperly incorporates each preceding paragraph and thus is a “shotgun” pleading, in violation of FRCP 8 and 10(b). Thus, if the Court grants no other relief, it should grant a motion for a more definitive statement pursuant to FRCP 12(e). Certificate pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 Case 8:14-cv-02068-MSS-MAP Document 32 Filed 02/04/15 Page 13 of 16 PageID 264 Case No. Case

Accordingly, Count VI is dismissed, without prejudice); Id. at p.12 (directing Plaintiff to split the state law claims into separate counts). However, Plaintiff continues to ignore both this Court and the Federal Rules, making it difficult for the Officers to identify appropriate defenses to Robbins’ claims in Counts VIII-X. Accordingly, because Counts VIII-X violate Rule 10(b) and this Court’s Orders by impermissibly attempting to assert more than one legal claim in a single count, these claims should be dismissed. Case 1:09-cv-20804-WMH Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2010 Page 9 of 12 10

PageID 346 12 plaintiff to allege his/her claims in separate counts, when each count is “founded on a separate transaction or occurrence,” Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails in this regard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). See also Warbunde v. Home Quality Mgmt., Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-337-FtM-33SPC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24529, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2006) (“It is not sufficient to incorporate all of the factual allegations for each count and [the defendant] should not be made to sift through the allegations and attempt to decipher which facts are supportive of a given claim.”)

In light of the foregoing, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed as violative of both Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a) and 10(b) as, among other things, it is so deficient that it is speculative for the Defendant to properly respond to it.