Springboards to Education Inc v Teach for America Inc

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court denies Defendant Teach for America, Inc.s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 32 ; and denies as moot Defendant Teach for America, Inc.'s Opposed Motion to Stay Discovery 25 . (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 9/27/2017) (ams)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SPRINGBOARDS TO EDUCATION, INC, §
§
Plaintiff,
§
v.
§
§
TEACH FOR AMERICA, INC.,
§
§
Defendant.
§

Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-2435-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Defendant Teach for America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint (Doc. 32), filed February 21, 2017; and Defendant Teach for America, Inc.’s
Opposed Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 25), filed January 20, 2017. After considering the
motions, briefs, pleadings, and applicable law, the court denies Defendant Teach for America, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 32); and denies as moot Defendant
Teach for America, Inc.’s Opposed Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 25). As herein explained, the
court believes that resolution of the matters in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is better suited for
summary judgment or trial, and the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss moots Defendant’s
request to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss.
I.

Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Springboards to Education, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brought this trademark action against

Defendant Teach for America, Inc. (“Defendant”) on August 23, 2016. In its “[Corrected] First
Amended Complaint,” Plaintiff asserts claims for trademark counterfeiting and infringement under
15 U.S.C. § 114; false designations of origin false descriptions and trademark dilution under 15
U.S.C. § 1125(a) and (c); violations of the Texas Anti-Dilution Statute; common law trademark

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

infringement; and common law unfair competition. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, injunctive relief, prejudgment and postjudgment
interest, and costs of court.
On February 21, 2017, Defendant moved to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to state claims
upon which relief can be granted. Defendant also contends that it is entitled to dismissal of
Plaintiff’s claims based on its fair-use and laches defenses. Plaintiff disagrees and contends in
response that its pleadings with respect to the claims asserted are sufficient, and dismissal of its
claims based on Defendant’s defenses is inappropriate because they are fact-intensive. Defendant
also moved to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss and submitted in support
of its motion to stay the following evidence: the declaration of Amber R. Pickett; the Petition for
Cancellation; Families in Schools, v. Springboard to Education, Inc., No. 795519 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 17,
2017); and the Petition for Cancellation; IDEA Public Schools v. Springboards to Education, Inc.,
No. 792809 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2017). Plaintiff opposes the motion to stay discovery and contends
that it should be denied as moot.
II.

Standard for Rule 12(b)(6) - Failure to State a Claim
To defeat a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, 517
F.3d 738, 742 (5th Cir. 2008); Guidry v. American Pub. Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir.
2007). A claim meets the plausibility test “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal citations omitted). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must
set forth “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). The “[f]actual allegations of [a
complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption
that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. (quotation marks,
citations, and footnote omitted). When the allegations of the pleading do not allow the court to infer
more than the mere possibility of wrongdoing, they fall short of showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the
complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sonnier v. State Farm
Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 509 F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007); Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area
Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996).
In ruling on such a motion, the court cannot look beyond the pleadings. Id.; Spivey v. Robertson, 197
F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999). The pleadings include the complaint and any documents attached to
it. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000). Likewise,
“‘[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings
if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to [the plaintiff’s] claims.’” Id.
(quoting Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993)). In
this regard, a document that is part of the record but not referred to in a plaintiff’s complaint and not
attached to a motion to dismiss may not be considered by the court in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion.
Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 699 F.3d 812, 820 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Further, it
is well-established and ‘“clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion [that a court may] take judicial
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3

notice of matters of public record.”’ Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Cinel v. Connick, 15
F.3d 1338, 1343 n.6 (5th Cir. 1994)).
The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid claim
when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter, 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002). While well-pleaded facts of a complaint
are to be accepted as true, legal conclusions are not “entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679 (citation omitted). Further, a court is not to strain to find inferences favorable to the
plaintiff and is not to accept conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions, or legal conclusions.
R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The court does not
evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success; instead, it only determines whether the plaintiff has
pleaded a legally cognizable claim. United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 355
F.3d 370, 376 (5th Cir. 2004). Stated another way, when a court deals with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
its task is to test the sufficiency of the allegations contained in the pleadings to determine whether
they are adequate enough to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mann v. Adams Realty
Co., 556 F.2d 288, 293 (5th Cir. 1977); Doe v. Hillsboro Indep. Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 1395, 1401 (5th
Cir. 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 113 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Accordingly, denial
of a 12(b)(6) motion has no bearing on whether a plaintiff ultimately establishes the necessary proof
to prevail on a claim that withstands a 12(b)(6) challenge. Adams, 556 F.2d at 293.

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 4

III.

Analysis
A.

Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

After considering Defendant’s motion, the parties’ briefs, pleadings, and applicable law, the
court determines that the allegations in Plaintiff’s “[Corrected] First Amended Complaint” are
sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, such that Defendant may be liable for
the claims asserted. Accordingly, resolution of the matters presented is better suited for summary
judgment or trial. The court, therefore, denies Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
B.

Motion to Stay Discovery

The court denies as moot Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its
motion to dismiss in light of its ruling on Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated the court denies Defendant Teach for America, Inc.’s Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 32); and denies as moot Defendant Teach for
America, Inc.’s Opposed Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 25).
It is so ordered this 27th day of September, 2017.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 5