Place v. Russell Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss 23 is denied. This case will be set for a Rule 16 conference by separate Order.Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/13/17. (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JEREMY PLACE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4: 17 CV 399 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Having reviewed defendants’ motion to dismiss in light of the relevant standards1, it will
be denied as plaintiff has pleaded sufficient allegations which, if proven, would entitle him and
other members of a purported collective action to relief. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss [23] is denied.
This case will be set for a Rule 16 conference by separate Order.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of April, 2017.
1

The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(6) is to test the
legal sufficiency of the complaint. When considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes the
factual allegations of a complaint are true and construes them in favor of the plaintiff. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989). To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain “more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678-79 (2009). 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.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.