McGue v. Kingdom Sports Center, Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 23 ). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court sua sponte grants Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint within 21 days of the date of this order. Failure to timely amend the complaint will result in dismissal of this civil action. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/15/2014. (mr1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

DALTON MCGUE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KINGDOM SPORTS CENTER, INC.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:14-cv-162
Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(Doc. 23)
This civil action is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 22),
and the parties’ responsive memoranda (Docs. 24, 25).
I.

FACTS ALLEGED BY THE PLAINTIFF

For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the Court must: (1) view the Complaint in
the light most favorable to Plaintiff; and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as
true. Tackett v. M&G Polymers, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 30, 2011, he incurred both internal and
external injuries at a recreation center owned and operated by Defendant. (Doc. 22 at
¶ 9). Plaintiff maintains that the injuries that he sustained were serious and permanent
and caused him great physical pain and mental anguish. (Id.)
Defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) operates to test the
sufficiency of the complaint and permits dismissal of a complaint for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.” To show grounds for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)
requires that the complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.”
While Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it
demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007)). Pleadings offering mere “‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In fact, in determining a motion to dismiss, “courts ‘are not bound to accept as true a
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation[.]’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986)). Further, “[f]actual allegations must be enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]” Id.
Accordingly, in order “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A claim is plausible where “plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Plausibility “is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’
but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.
2

“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the
pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. (citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2)).
III.

ANALYSIS

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain any
factual allegations upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 23 at 2). The Court agrees.
Plaintiff failed to allege a single fact in support of his claims for relief.
Specifically, the amended complaint does not set forth any facts asserting how Defendant
negligently and recklessly maintained its premises or how Plaintiff was injured on the
premises. The amended complaint simply asserts legal declarations to this effect.
Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine what events occurred at the recreation
center that led to Plaintiff’s unspecified injuries.
Plaintiff maintains that Defendant should already know the facts of the case
because the parties engaged in discovery, including depositions in the underlying state
court action. 1 (Doc. 24 at 2). However, “matters outside of the pleadings are not to be
considered by a court in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Weiner v. Klais & Co.,
Inc., 108 F.3d 86, 88 (6th Cir. 1997). Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument that the facts have
already been alleged in another court is irrelevant to the pending motion to dismiss.

1

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the state court action pursuant to Ohio Civ. R. 41(A)(1) and
refiled the instant action before this Court.
3

Therefore, the amended complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements imposed by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for these reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 23) is
GRANTED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court sua sponte grants Plaintiff
leave to amend the complaint within 21 days of the date of this order. Failure to timely
amend the complaint will result in dismissal of this civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9/15/14
Date: _______

s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

4