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)

Download PDF
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 P. 11, 20 but was withdrawn in the Reply.) 21 A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which 22 relief can be granted.”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?