David et al v. Signal InternationaL LLC et al
Filing
1722
ORDER AND REASONS denying 1535 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KURIAN DAVID, et al.
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
No. 08-1220
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
SECTION āEā
Related Cases:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
No. 12-557
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
SECTION āEā
LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al.,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
No. 13-6218
(c/w 13-6219, 13-6220,
13-6221, 14-732)
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
SECTION "E"
Applies To: David v. Signal (08-1220)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Billy Wilks, J&M Associates, Inc.,
and J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC (collectively, the "J&M Defendants").1 Plaintiffs oppose
1
R. Doc. 1535.
1
the J&M Defendants' motion.2
The J&M Defendants move to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a
claim, primarily denying the factual allegations pled in Plaintiffs' complaint.3 Under Rule
12(b)(6), a district court may dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted if the plaintiff has not set forth factual allegations
in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S.
554 (2007); Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007). In assessing the Plaintiffs'
complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and liberally construe all
factual allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Lowry v. Texas A&M Univ.
Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997).
The Court finds the facts pled in Plaintiffs' complaint are sufficient to support their
claims against the J&M Defendants.4 This Court already denied a similar motion filed by
the J&M Defendants seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs' RICO claim.5 The Court is not persuaded
to reach a contrary decision when Plaintiffs' factual allegations have not altered since this
Court's previous decision. Moreover, for the reasons set forth in the Court's Order and
Reasons in the David case on the 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed by Signal and the 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the
2
R. Doc. 1562.
3
The J&M Defendants' motion, filed pro se, does not specifically move under Rule 12(b)(6) to
dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. However, based on the arguments made in the J&M Defendants' motion, the
Court construes the motion as a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
4
The J&M Defendants' motion was filed before Plaintiffs filed their fourth, fifth, and sixth
amended complaints. The factual allegations contained in Plaintiffs' third amended complaint are
identical to the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint. Plaintiffs' amended complaints were
filed to clarify their causes of action, to state which law their state law claims arise under, and to add
additional Signal defendants.
5
R. Doc. 288.
2
Pleadings filed by Burnett,6 Plaintiffs' complaint alleges sufficient facts to survive a motion
to dismiss.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the J&M Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be and
hereby is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of August, 2014.
____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
R. Doc. 1713.
3
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?