Ruiz v. Bank of America NA et al
ORDER denying 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 12/21/11.(alew, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bank of America NA, et al.,
C/A No.: 7:11-cv-02480-GRA
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all five of
Plaintiff’s causes of action. (ECF No. 4). On September 22, 2011, Defendants filed
their Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant argues that the five claims at issue (declaratory judgment, breach of
contract, violation of South Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act, promissory
estoppel, and a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) are subject to
dismissal on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim.
Plaintiff has responded in opposition, and a hearing was held on
December 19, 2011. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a pleading must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
It has been noted that “[a] motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of a
Page 1 of 3
complaint, as governed by Rule 8.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Innovative Mktg., Inc.,
654 F. Supp. 2d 378, 384 (D. Md. 2009). When presented with a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss, the court must restrict its inquiry to the sufficiency of the
complaint rather than “resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim,
or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin, 980
F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “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, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court noted
that “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged,” id., and noted that “[d]etermining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense,” id. at 1950.
added that “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained
in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions,” and that, “[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
Id. at 1949.
The Court further noted that “[w]hen there are well-
pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 1950.
Page 2 of 3
This Court, after a careful review of the pleadings and hearing oral arguments
on the motion, holds that the Plaintiff has met his burden under Iqbol, and concludes
that the complaint pleads sufficient facts for which this Court can infer a plausible
claim for relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 21, 2011
Anderson, South Carolina
Page 3 of 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?