American Power, LLC v. Harris et al

Filing 93

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILE DEFENDANTS' TWO MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO. 3:17-CV-347, DOC. NO. 86 ; AND CASE NO. 3:21-CV-21, DOC. NO. 6 ). Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 07/14/2021. (bjr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
AMERICAN POWER, LLC,
vs.

Plaintiff,

DOUGLAS O. HARRIS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-347
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

DEXTRIX, LLC,
vs.

Plaintiff,

ADIL BAGUIROV, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:21-cv-21
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILE DEFENDANTS’ TWO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (CASE NO.
3:17-CV-347, DOC. NO. 86; AND CASE NO. 3:21-CV-21, DOC. NO. 6)
______________________________________________________________________________
These consolidated cases are before the Court upon Defendants Fontaine Engineered
Products, Inc.; Marmon Highway Technologies LLC; Kelly Dier; Henry Prochazka; and Berkley
Buchanan’s joint motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Case No. 3:17-cv-347,
Doc. No. 86), and the parties’ related memoranda (Doc. Nos. 88, 92). Also before the Court is
Defendants Adil Baguirov, Islom Shakhbandarov, and American Power LLC’s joint motion to
dismiss (Case No. 3:21-cv-21, Doc. No. 6), and the parties’ related memoranda (Doc. No. 10 and,
in Case No. 3:17-cv-347, Doc. No. 87). Both pending motions seek dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I.
Rule 12(b)(6), like all other Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed,
administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) operates to test the sufficiency of the
complaint and permits dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must satisfy the basic pleading requirements set forth in
Rule 8(a). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
A complaint will not suffice if it offers only “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Instead, “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
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Where a
complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short of the line
between possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
557). In considering whether the facial plausibility standard is met, the court must view the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting as true all allegations in the complaint and drawing
all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See, e.g., Kaminski v. Coulter, 865 F.3d 339, 344 (6th
Cir. 2017).

II.
Having carefully and thoroughly considered the documents at issue along with the
procedural posture of this case, the Court believes the efficient and appropriate way forward is to
2

permit discovery to occur and consider the parties’ arguments on summary judgment, not earlier
at the motion-to-dismiss phase of the litigation. Proceeding in this manner will ensure the Court
reviews these arguments only after appropriate discovery has been completed, and will thus serve
to guarantee that the Court’s consideration of the parties’ arguments is not premature. Cf.
Humphreys v. Bank of Am., 557 F.App’x 416, 422 (6th Cir. 2014); Grose v. Caruso, 284 F.App’x
279, 284 (6th Cir. 2008) (Gibbons, J., concurring); Nuchols v. Berrong, 141 F.App’x 451, 453 (6th
Cir. 2005); LRL Prop. v. Portage Metro Housing Auth., 55 F.3d 1097, 1113 (6th Cir. 1995) (Jones,
J., dissenting).
III.
Accordingly, the two pending motions to dismiss are BOTH DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Court anticipates reviewing Defendants’ arguments on summary judgment
following the completion of discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 14, 2021

s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge

3