Akins v. L M Power Blades (Arkansas) Inc

Filing 8

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Atkins's FMLA claim survives this motion. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 6/12/2014. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
LARRY AKINS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:14-cv-00208-KGB

LM WIND POWER BLADES (ARKANSAS) INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Plaintiff Larry Akins brings this action against defendant LM Wind Power Blades
(Arkansas) Inc. (“LM”) for alleged violations of Mr. Akins’s rights under the Family and
Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution (Dkt. No. 1). Before the Court is LM’s Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Mr. Akins’s Equal Protection claim (Dkt. No. 5). Mr.
Akins did not file a response to the motion to dismiss, and the time to do so has now passed.
“To 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, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
The Fourteenth Amendment “applies to acts of the states, not to acts of private persons or
entities.” Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 837-38 (1982) (citing Civil Rights Cases, 109
U.S. 3, 11 (1883); Shelly v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948)). LM contends that it is a private
entity, not a state or federal actor, and that no claim can be brought against it under the
Fourteenth Amendment (Dkt. No. 5).

In his complaint, Mr. Akins describes LM as a

“corporation that was duly authorized to conduct business” and states that it is an “employer in

the private sector” (Dkt. No. 1, at 2-3). Mr. Akins has pleaded no facts indicating that LM acted
under the color of state or federal law. Based on Mr. Akins’s own categorization of LM and the
controlling cases, Mr. Akin has failed to state an Equal Protection claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment against LM upon which relief can be granted.
For these reasons, the Court grants LM’s motion to dismiss Mr. Akins’s Equal Protection
claim. Mr. Akins’s FMLA claim survives this motion.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of June, 2014.

________________________________
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2