City of Cottleville, Missouri v. T-Mobile Central, LLC

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss 19 is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for hearing 32 is denied as moot. This case will be set for a scheduling conference by separate Order. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/17/17. (KXS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CITY OF COTTLEVILLE, MISSOURI, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
T-MOBILE CENTRAL, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. 4:17 CV 2150 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Having carefully
considered the parties’ arguments under the relevant standards,1 the motion to
dismiss must be denied. Plaintiff’s complaint adequately alleges the elements of
its claim to collect unpaid business license taxes. See City of Springfield v. Sprint
Spectrum, L.P., 203 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. banc 2006). Defendant’s remaining
1

To decide a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), I must assume all the facts
alleged in the complaint are true and liberally construe the complaint in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. Foster v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 2012 WL 5285887, at *2 (E.D. Mo.
Oct. 25, 2012) (citing Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2008)). The
allegations must be sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” however, and
the motion to dismiss must be granted if the complaint does not contain “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555,
570 (2007). Thus, a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) should be granted “only in the unusual case
in which a plaintiff includes allegations that show, on the face of the complaint, that there is
some insuperable bar to relief.” Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 380 F.3d 316, 317
(8th Cir.2004); Baily Int’l, Inc. v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-1708 JAR, 2015 WL
1781672, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 15, 2015).

arguments with respect to preemption and any defenses it may assert under
Missouri law are not properly raised in a motion to dismiss. Whether plaintiff’s
claim will ultimately fail for one or more of these reasons is not before me at this
stage in the proceedings. Plaintiff is entitled to present evidence in support of its
claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss [19] is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for hearing [32] is denied as
moot.
This case will be set for a scheduling conference by separate Order.

_______________________________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 17th day of November, 2017.

2