Aicklen v. Cotton Holdings Inc.

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified. (jm4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

HALEY AICKLEN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
COTTON HOLDINGS INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

May 09, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-04122

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s, Haley Aicklen, motion to dismiss the defendant’s,
Cotton Holiday, Inc., counterclaim allegations of breach of contract request for attorney’s
fees [DE 7]. The defendant has filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss [DE
10]. Considering the motion, response, arguments contained and the pleadings of the
parties, the Court determines that the plaintiff’s motion is unmeritorious and; therefore, the
plaintiff’s motion should be denied.
II.
The plaintiff’s pleadings generally show that she was employed by the defendant on
the occasion of the dispute that give rise to this lawsuit in June and/or July 2022. The
plaintiff was accused by her employer of making unauthorized personal purchases on the
company credit card. According to the defendant, the matter was handled by the parties
and the plaintiff entered into a written agreement on July 5, 2022, that amount to a “pay1/3

back” agreement in exchange for her continued employment. However, on July 25, the
defendant discharged the plaintiff for “engaging in unprofessional behavior in violation of
the defendant’s policy at a company event.”
When the plaintiff filed her suit for job discrimination on October 30, 2023, the
defendant filed an Original Answer and included counterclaims for breach of
contract/agreement concerning the “pay-back” agreement for an equitable claim for
“money had and received” and for an attorney’s fee.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) along with case precedent teaches
that a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to state a “plausible” claim for relief. Bell Atl.
Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696
(5th Cir. 2005). This Fifth Circuit has not determined that the same rules of pleading
specificity should apply to asserted counterclaims and affirmative defenses, particularly
those claims that are based solidly in factual pleading. The Court is persuaded, however,
that the same “plausibility” standard should apply to a defendant, where the claims asserted
are fact intensive.
In this case, the plaintiff’s response acknowledges that a document of some
magnitude was executed by the plaintiff in July 2022. Whether the “agreement” is
sufficient to sustain the defendant’s counterclaims are principally a question of law.
Moreover, whether the evidence presented will support a quasi-contract or the award of an
attorney’s fee are also questions of law.

2/3

Here, the claims asserted by the defendant appear to rest in contract interpretation;
because there is not dispute that the parties have a agreement the terms of which must be
resolved alongside the plaintiff suit. In this instance, the defendant’s pleading set out a
sufficient factual and legal basis for defendant’s claim. Hence, the plaintiff’s motion to
dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims is Denied.
It is so Ordered.
SIGNED on May 9, 2024, at Houston, Texas.

_______________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge

3/3