Atlantic Engineering Group, Inc. v. Ralls County Electric Cooperative

Filing 173

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Toth and Associates, Inc.s Motion to Quash, [Doc. No. 94], is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Second Amended Counterclaim, [Doc. NO. 108], is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 112], is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II of Defendants Counterclaim, [Doc. No. 122], is DENIED. IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED that Counter Defendant First National Insurance Company of Americas Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No.127],is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of the Complaint and Count I of the Counterclaim, [Doc. No. 129], is DENIED. 112 129 94 108 122 127 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 6/17/14. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
)
ATLANTIC ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) Case No. 2:13CV52 HEA
)
RALLS COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, )
)
Defendant.
)

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Toth and Associates, Inc.’s Motion to
Quash, [Doc. No. 94], Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Second
Amended Counterclaim, [Doc. NO. 108], Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, [Doc. No. 112], Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II
of Defendant’s Counterclaim, [Doc. No. 122], Counter Defendant First National
Insurance Company of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 127],
and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of the Complaint and
Count I of the Counterclaim, [Doc. No. 129].
The Court is advised that the Motion to Quash has been resolved by the
parties. The motion is therefore denied, as moot.

When ruling on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must take as true the alleged facts and
determine whether they are sufficient to raise more than a speculative right to
relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). The Court does
not, however, accept as true any allegation that is a legal conclusion. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). The complaint must have “‘a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief,’ in
order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2))
and then Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), abrogated by Twombly, supra);
see also Gregory v. Dillard’s Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 473 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert.
denied, 130 S.Ct. 628 (2009). While detailed factual allegations are not necessary,
a complaint that contains “labels and conclusions,” and “a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action” is not sufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555;
accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. The complaint must set forth “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570;
accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585,
594 (8th Cir. 2009). “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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. If the
-2-

claims are only conceivable, not plausible, the complaint must be dismissed.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. In considering a
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “the complaint should be read as
a whole, not parsed piece by piece to determine whether each allegation, in
isolation, is plausible.” Braden, 588 F.3d at 594. The issue in considering such a
motion is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the plaintiff
is entitled to present evidence in support of the claim. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327 (1989). “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, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949,(2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Thus, “although a
complaint need not include detailed factual allegations, ‘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.’ ” C.N. v. Willmar Pub. Sch., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624, 62930 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955).
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment
may be granted only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

-3-

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law."
The standards for summary judgment are also well settled. In determining
whether summary judgment should issue, the Court views the facts and inferences
from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Employers
Mut. Cas. Co. v. Wendland & Utz, Ltd, 351 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2003); Enter. Bank
v. Magna Bank 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996). The moving party has the
burden to establish both the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that it
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56©; Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986); Enter. Bank, 92 F.3d at 747. Once the moving party has met this burden,
the nonmoving party may not rest on the allegations in its pleadings but by
affidavit or other evidence must set forth specific facts showing that a genuine
issue of material fact exists. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson 477 U.S. at 256;
Krenik v. Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995). To survive a motion for
summary judgment, the “nonmoving party must ‘substantiate his allegations with
sufficient probative evidence [that] would permit a finding in [his] favor based on
more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.’ Wilson v. Int’l Bus. Machs.
Corp., 62 F.3d 237, 241 (8th Cir. 1995)(quotation omitted).” Putman v. Unity
-4-

Health System, 348 F.3d 732, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2003). “[A] complete failure of
proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily
renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The Court will
review the facts in this case with these standards in mind.
The court has reviewed the record before it. Based on the entire record,
summary judgment in favor of any of the parties is not appropriate. Considering
all of the facts, together with inferences to be drawn therefrom, it appears that
genuine issues of material fact remain. Summary judgment is therefore, not
appropriate at this time. Likewise, Defendant’s Count II sufficiently alleges a
cause of action. Accordingly, the Motions for Summary Judgment and the
Motion to Dismiss Count II are denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Toth and Associates, Inc.’s Motion to
Quash, [Doc. No. 94], is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Count II
of the Second Amended Counterclaim, [Doc. NO. 108], is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, [Doc. No. 112], is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on Count II of Defendant’s Counterclaim, [Doc. No. 122], is DENIED.
-5-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counter Defendant First National
Insurance Company of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No.
127],is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on Count I of the Complaint and Count I of the Counterclaim, [Doc. No.
129], is DENIED.
Dated this 17th day of June, 2014.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-6-