Navarro et al v. American National Skyline Incorporated of MO. et al

Filing 31

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 11 23 ORDERED that Defendant American National Skyline Incorporated of Missouri's Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 11], is denied as superceded by its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant American National Skyline Incorporated of Missouri's Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 23], is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 3/31/13. (CEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY R. NAVARRO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AMERICAN NATIONAL SKYLINE
INCORPORATED OF MO., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:12CV801 HEA
)
)
)
)
)
)

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant American National Skyline
Incorporated of Missouri’s Motions to Dismiss, [Doc. Nos. 11 and 23 ], Plaintiffs
oppose both motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions to Dismiss are
denied.
Facts and Background
Plaintiffs originally filed this action in the Circuit Court for the County of
St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant removed the action based on the Court’s federal
question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, claiming that Plaintiffs’ claims concern
the terms, administration and/or interpretation of a collective bargaining
agreement, and as such are completely preempted by the Labor Management
Relations Act, LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158, et seq.
Plaintiffs’ State Court Petition alleges that Plaintiffs were employed by

Defendant as journeymen window washers, and that Defendant failed to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Missouri Wage Act, Sections 290.500 though
290.530, RSMo. Defendant has filed this Motion to Partially Dismiss for failure
to state a claim. Defendant contends this action is completely preempted by the
LMRA, and therefore, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently raise an LMRA claim.
Discussion
Standard of Review
Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
When ruling on a 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,”
-2-

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; C.N. v. Willmar Pub.
Sch., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624, 629-30 (8th Cir.2010); Zutz v.
Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010); 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 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).
In support of their Motion to Partially dismiss the Amended Complaint,
Defendant has submitted the Declaration of Keith Pipes, Vice President of
Defendant.
In ruling on motions to dismiss, the Court may consider certain materials
-3-

outside the pleadings.1 That is, the Court is not required to do so. Indeed, in the
event the Court considers matters outside the pleadings when addressing the
merits of a motion to dismiss which do not fall within the limited exceptions, the
motion must be converted to a motion for summary judgment.
Rule 12(b) is not permissive. “[T]he motion shall be treated as one for
summary judgment ....” Id. (emphasis added). “Most courts ... view
‘matters outside the pleading’ as including any written or oral
evidence in support of or in opposition to the pleading that provides
some substantiation for and does not merely reiterate what is said in
the pleadings.” Gibb v. Scott, 958 F.2d 814, 816 (8th Cir.1992)
(quoting Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1366).
This interpretation of the rule is “appropriate in light of our prior
decisions indicating a 12(b)(6) motion will succeed or fail based upon
the allegations contained in the face of the complaint.” Gibb, 958
F.2d at 816. There must be reliance by the district court on the
matters outside the pleading before it can be said that a motion to
dismiss has been converted into one for summary judgment. Casazza
v. Kiser, 313 F.3d 414, 418 (8th Cir.2002).

BJC Health System v. Columbia Cas. Co., 348 F.3d 685, 687-68 (8th Cir. 2003).
The Court concludes that the Declaration provided to the Court constitutes a
matter outside the pleading. The document was provided “in opposition to the
pleading.” For what purpose would Defendant have provided the document to the
Court, other than to discredit and contradict the allegations against it?
Defendant’s contention that the document merely fleshes out the allegations in the
Complaint is insufficient to establish that the Court should consider it in its

Such items as those materials those that do not contradict the complaint,
are public records or are “necessarily embraced by the pleadings.”
1

-4-

consideration of the sufficiency of the claims against Defendant. Id. Indeed, the
Declaration sets out more than charged by Plaintiffs. The Declaration is an
attempt by Defendant to establish the very essence of its preemption argument,
rather than simply “fleshing out” the factual allegations of Plaintiffs’ claims.
At some point in this litigation it may become necessary for the Court to
determine whether Defendant is entitled to judgment based on its preemption
argument. At this stage of the litigation, however, the Court is not at liberty to
consider the arguments propounded based upon matters outside the pleadings, as
the Court’s inquiry is limited to the sufficiency of the pleadings. As such, the
Motions to Dismiss must be denied.
Conclusion
Defendant’s attempt to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint under the
provision of Rule 12(b)(6) fails at this time. The Court will not consider the
attached Declaration in support of the Motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant American National Skyline
Incorporated of Missouri’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 11], is denied as
superceded by its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant American National Skyline

-5-

Incorporated of Missouri’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 23], is denied
Dated this 31st day of March, 2013.

______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-6-