American Resource Technologies Inc et al v. Oden et al

Filing 18

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 12 Motion to Dismiss. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 2/11/2014) (axm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
AMERICAN RESOURCE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BELA FRED ODEN, III, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO: 13-cv-4419-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 4, 2013, one of the named defendants in this case, Eric Oden, filed a Motion
to Dismiss along with an Answer (doc. 12) to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Mr. Oden, proceeding pro se,
asserts in support of his Motion to Dismiss that he “was named in this action in bad faith as an
attempt to coerce [him] to withdraw [a separate] civil action against the Plaintiffs,” and that he “had
no involvement in any of the actions or allegations presented to the court in this civil action.” (Mot.
Dismiss & Ans. at 1.) But “[i]n considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a district
court must limit itself to the contents of the pleadings, including the attachments thereto.” Collins
v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000). In addition, at the motion to
dismiss stage of the proceedings, “all facts pleaded in the complaint must be taken as true.” Id. at 498.
Here, Mr. Oden’s Motion to Dismiss argues, first, that outside evidence (showing Plaintiffs’ bad faith)
establishes that Plaintiffs’ suit lacks merit, and second, that the allegations are untrue because he had
no involvement in this matter. Both of these arguments are pre-mature as the Court must not
consider outside evidence at this stage in the proceedings or question the credibility of Plaintiffs’

factual allegations. Thus, Mr. Oden’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 12) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: February 11, 2014.

_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE