TXI Operations, LP v. McKinney, Texas City of
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Defendant City's Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 6 ) is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 8/11/2020. (rpc, )
Case 4:20-cv-00353-ALM Document 20 Filed 08/11/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 240
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
TXI OPERATIONS, LP,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MCKINNEY, TEXAS,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-00353-ALM
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant City’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) and Brief in Support (Dkt. #6). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings,
the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
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 the 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
Case 4:20-cv-00353-ALM Document 20 Filed 08/11/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 241
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 wellpleaded 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 should identify and
disregard conclusory allegations, for they are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 664. 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) (citation omitted). This
evaluation will “be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
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.”’ Id. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
ANALYSIS
After a careful review of 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
2
Case 4:20-cv-00353-ALM Document 20 Filed 08/11/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 242
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion should be
.
denied.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant City’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) and Brief in Support (Dkt. #6) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 11th day of August, 2020.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?