Steward v. KeHe Distributors Inc

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION - DENYING 13 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) and Brief in Support filed by KeHe Distributors Inc. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/24/2018. (baf, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

JASON STEWARD

§
§
§
§
§

v.
KEHE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,

Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00722
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Defendant KeHe Distributors, Inc.’s (“KeHe”) Renewed
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #13). Having considered the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that
Defendant’s motion should be denied.
On November 2, 2017, Defendant filed its Renewed Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #13). On November 6, 2017, Plaintiff responded in
opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #15). On November 13, 2017, Defendant replied
(Dkt. #16).
LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that each claim in a complaint include a “short
and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Each
claim must include enough factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows a party to move for dismissal of an action when the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded
facts in plaintiff’s complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court may consider “the

complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to
dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.),
L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). The Court must then determine
whether the complaint states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. ‘“A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’”

Gonzalez v. Kay,

577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “But
where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the [C]ourt 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.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)).
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency
of a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. First, the Court identifies conclusory
allegations and proceeds to disregard them, for they are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.”
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951. Second, the Court “consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint]
to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. “This standard ‘simply calls
for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of’ the
necessary claims or elements.” Morgan v. Hubert, 335 F. App’x 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2009). This
evaluation will “be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing [C]ourt to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
Thus, “[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.’”
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

2

Id. at 678

ANALYSIS
After reviewing the current complaint, the motion to dismiss, the response, and the reply,
the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated plausible claims for purposes of defeating a Rule 12(b)(6)
.

motion.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Dkt. #13) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 24th day of January, 2018.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3