Martin v. Thomas et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions to dismiss 27 , 30 , 32 are denied. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 9/5/17. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARK MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17 CV 1000 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff claims to own the rights to a license granted by defendant Thomas
for rights to certain technologies. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Thomas
breached the terms of the license by selling and/or licensing the technologies to
third parties, including defendants Rayeman Elements, Inc. (“REI”), and
Nationwide 5, LLC. Plaintiff brings claims against defendants for breach of the
licensing agreement, patent infringement, and fraud, and also seeks declaratory
relief regarding the licensing agreement. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
Nationwide also seeks a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(c).

Having reviewed the complaint in light of the relevant standards,1 the
motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings must be denied at this time.
Whether plaintiff may ultimately be entitled to relief on some or all of his claims is
not properly before me at this stage of the proceedings. However, he has
adequately alleged the necessary elements and is entitled to conduct discovery and
present evidence in support of his claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions to dismiss [27, 30, 32] are
denied.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of September, 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. “The same standards that govern motions to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) also govern motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).” Ellis v. City of
Minneapolis, 860 F.3d 1106, 1109 (8th Cir. 2017).
2