Ocenture, LLC v. Allconnect, Inc

Filing 23

ORDER denying 10 Allconnect's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 10/19/2015. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

OCENTURE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 3:15-cv-391-J-34JBT

ALLCONNECT, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Allconnect’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 10; Motion) filed on July 13, 2015. Plaintiff
filed its response in opposition to the Motion on July 30, 2015. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 14; Response). With the Court’s permission, Defendant filed
a reply on August 20, 2015, see Allconnect’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
(Dkt. No. 19; Reply), and Plaintiff filed a surreply on August 31, 2015, see Plaintiff’s Surreply
to Allconnect’s Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims (Dkt. No. 21;
Surreply). Accordingly, the Motion is ripe for review.
I.

Standard of Review
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in
the complaint as true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Swierkiewicz v.
Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508 n.1 (2002); see also Lotierzo v. Woman’s World Med. Ctr.,

Inc., 278 F.3d 1180, 1182 (11th Cir. 2002). In addition, all reasonable inferences should be
drawn in favor of the plaintiff. See Omar ex. rel. Cannon v. Lindsey, 334 F.3d 1246, 1247
(11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Nonetheless, the plaintiff must still meet some minimal
pleading requirements. Jackson v. Bellsouth Telecomm., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262-63 (11th Cir.
2004) (citations omitted). Indeed, while “[s]pecific facts are not necessary[,]” the complaint
should “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Further, the plaintiff must allege “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
A “plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations omitted); see also Jackson, 372
F.3d at 1262 (explaining that “[c]onclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or
legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal”) (internal citation and
quotations omitted). Indeed, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions,” which simply “are not entitled
to [an] assumption of truth.” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 680-81. Thus, in ruling on a motion
to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678
-2-

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
II.

Discussion
In the Motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1; Complaint)

fails to state a claim because Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a breach of contract,
see Motion at 7-9, and because Plaintiff cannot allege any injury resulting in damages
without improperly expanding the non-disclosure agreement between the parties, see id. at
9-11. In the Response, Plaintiff argues that the Complaint does state a claim and that
Defendant is essentially asking the Court to construe the allegations in the Complaint in the
light most favorable to Defendant rather than Plaintiff. See Response at 8-9. Upon review,
the Court is not convinced that the Complaint fails to state a claim plausible on its face, and
concludes that Defendant's Motion is due to be denied. In denying the Motion, however, the
Court does not resolve the ultimate merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Rather, it concludes that
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains sufficient allegations to allow the case to proceed to the next
stage. In this case, it is a better course to consider the merits of these claims at summary
judgment, wherein the record and arguments are more fully developed and the parties can
no longer rely on mere allegations of fact.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:

-3-

Allconnect’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims and Incorporated Memorandum of
Law (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 19th day of October, 2015.

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-4-