Sides et al v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 17 MOTION to Dismiss, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/13/11q. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MYRA SIDES, et al.,
MACON COUNTY GREYHOUND PARK, )
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-895-MEF
(WO- Do Not Publish)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 17) filed on
December 1, 2010 by Defendant Macon County Greyhound Park and the related Motion for
Ruling that the Six-Month Job Loss Issue Raised in the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Is
Moot (Doc. # 34) filed on February 9, 2011 by counsel for Plaintiffs. The Court has carefully
considered all submissions relating to these motions, including Defendant’s concession that
the later motion be GRANTED.
The Motion to Dismiss is based on a contention that certain claims in the suit were not
ripe as of the date that the lawsuit commenced. Defendant concedes that any such claims are
now ripe. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Ruling that the SixMonth Job Loss Issue Raised in the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Is Moot (Doc. # 34) is
GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that to the extent that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #
17) was predicated on a contention that certain claims were not ripe or were premature
because the plaintiffs had been laid off for less than six month at the time the lawsuit
commenced, that motion is DENIED.
In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant also argued that the Complaint failed to state a
claim for which relief could be granted. This argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) pointed specifically to Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the threshold
requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“the WARN Act”).
Defendant argues, not that the WARN Act does not provide a remedy but the Plaintiffs have
failed to adequately plead facts which would entitle them to any remedy under the WARN
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Prior to the
Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), a motion to
dismiss could only be granted if a plaintiff could prove “no set of facts . . . which would
entitle him to relief.” See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Hishon v.
King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967 (11th Cir.
1986). Now, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir.
2009). A complaint states a facially plausible claim for relief “when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. A complaint does
not state a facially plausible claim for relief if it shows only “a sheer possibility that the
defendant acted unlawfully.” Id. While a complaint need not contain detailed factual
allegations to survive a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “[a]
pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). Absent the
accusation[s]” will not suffice. Id. In considering a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a district
court will accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in a light most
favorable to the plaintiff. See Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1057
(11th Cir. 2007). Accord, Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 640 (2004) (where a court is
considering dismissal of a complaint at the pleading stage, it must assume the allegations of
the complaint are true).
Having reviewed the allegations of the Complaint, the Court is satisfied with the
specificity of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations. Accepting them as true and viewing them in the
light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds that the complaint states a facially plausible
claim for relief under the WARN Act. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 17) is
DONE this the 13 day of July, 2011.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?