Jay Wolfe Imports, Inc. v. Four Corners Roofing of Wellsville, LLC

Filing 17

ORDER denying 6 defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and granting 10 plaintiff's motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file its First Amended Complaint within five days of the date of this Order. Signed on 1/10/13 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
JAY WOLFE IMPORTS, INC.
D/B/A Jay Wolfe Honda
Plaintiff,
vs.
FOUR CORNERS ROOFING
OF WELLSVILLE, LLC
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-CV-01289-W-FJG

ORDER
Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Four Corners Roofing, LLC
(“Four Corner’s”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition or in the Alternative For More
Definite Statement (Doc. # 6) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint (Doc. # 10).
I. BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2012, plaintiff Jay Wolfe hired defendant, Four Corners, to replace
the roof at its facility in Kansas City, Missouri. Plaintiff alleges that the contract put the
responsibility on defendant to make the building “weather tight.” On May 6, 2012,
plaintiff claims that a rainstorm caused massive amounts of water to enter its building
because defendant failed to make the building weather tight. Plaintiff alleges that as a
result of the water entering through the roof, it suffered damages in excess of $147,000
and suffered lost business income in excess of $30,000.00.

II. STANDARD
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must present “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The
purpose of a short and plain statement is to provide defendants with “fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 545 (2007)(citation omitted). To satisfy this standard, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937,1949 (2009)(quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570).
A complaint “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations omitted). On a
motion to dismiss, a court’s evaluation of a plaintiff’s complaint is a
“context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950.
McNeil v. Missouri Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, No. 2:10-CV-04154NKL, 2010 WL 3732191,*3 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 20, 2010).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) states in part, “A party may move for a more definite statement of
a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or
ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”

III. DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that plaintiff’s petition does not place defendant on notice of
the nature of the claim and makes only vague and unsupported references to a contract
and negligence. Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to reference or cite the
2

contract and thus has failed to put defendant on notice as to what portion of the contract
it allegedly breached. Defendant also argues that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for
negligence because the petition contains no reference to a legal duty owed to it by
defendant, a breach of that duty or an explanation of the proximate cause. Finally,
defendant states that plaintiff’s petition contains a claim for lost profits, but has failed to
pled its lost profits with sufficient particularity to comply with the Federal Rules.
In response, plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.
In the Motion, plaintiff states that the First Amended Complaint seeks to correct the
deficiencies which were noted in defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Defendant filed no
opposition to plaintiff’s Motion to File An Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, because the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, more specifically
delineates the nature of plaintiff’s claims and with no opposition indicated, the Court
hereby DENIES defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and GRANTS plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file its First Amended Complaint within
five days of the date of this Order.

Date: January 10, 2013
Kansas City, Missouri

S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

3