Limtiaco v Auctioncars.com, LLC
Filing
13
ORDER denying Defendant's 8 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 10/11/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
***
11
12
13
14
15
ALICIA L. LIMTIACO,
)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
AUCTION CARS.COM, LLC.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
____________________________________)
Case No. 2:11-cv-370-RLH-PAL
ORDER
(Motion to Dismiss–#8)
16
17
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#8, filed April 28, 2011). Plaintiff
18
filed a Response (#10), to which Defendant filed a Reply (#11). The motion is based upon Rule
19
12(b)(1) and (6). (There is also a request for attorney fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11,
20
but was withdrawn in the Reply.)
21
A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which
22
relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “a short and
23
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While a pleading generally
24
need not contain detailed allegations, it must allege sufficient facts “to raise a right to relief above the
25
speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint does not
26
allege sufficient facts to raise a right to relief above the speculative level if it contains nothing more
1
1
than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
2
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).
3
Instead, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to
4
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. At 1949 (internal citations
5
omitted).
6
In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court provided a two-step approach for district
7
courts to apply when considering motions to dismiss. First, the court must accept as true all factual
8
allegations in the complaint. Id. at 1950. A court does not, however, assume the truth of legal
9
conclusions merely because the plaintiff casts them in the form of factual allegations. Id. at 1950;
10
Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere recitals of the
11
elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements also do not suffice. Iqbal, 129
12
S. Ct. at 1949. Second, the court must consider whether the factual allegations in the complaint allege
13
a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
14
factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
15
alleged misconduct.” Id. at 1949. Thus, where the complaint does not permit the court to infer more
16
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has “alleged—but not shown—that the pleader
17
is entitled to relief.” Id. (Internal quotation marks omitted). When the claims in a complaint have not
18
crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. Twombly,
19
550 U.S. at 570.
20
This is not a motion for summary judgment and will not be considered as such. Even
21
if it were, there are material questions of fact which would preclude granting a motion for summary
22
judgment at this stage in the proceedings.
23
Plaintiff has adequately alleged sufficient facts “to raise a right to relief above the
24
speculative level.” Whether she will prevail at trial, or a subsequent motion for summary judgment,
25
remains to be seen. However, at present the Court finds that her allegations, if taken as true, are
26
sufficient to state a claim.
2
1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#8) is DENIED.
2
Dated: October 11, 2011.
3
4
____________________________________
Roger L. Hunt
United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?