Place v. Russell Technologies, Inc. et al
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
RUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
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  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.
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.
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?