Dziurkiewicz et al v. Dziurkiewicz

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 06/24/2013. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

WILLIAM STANLEY DZIURKIEWICZ,
and MELISSA GAIL DZIURKIEWICZ,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
Case No. 2:12-cv-00907-RJS
ELIZABETH MARIE DZIURKIEWICZ,
Defendant.

Judge Robert J. Shelby

On September 24, 2012, Plaintiffs William and Melissa Dziurkiewicz filed a pro se
Complaint asserting state law causes of action against Defendant Elizabeth Dzieurkiewicz for
intentional infliction of emotion distress, slander, and deceitful business practices. (Dkt. No. 1).
Plaintiffs invoke federal diversity jurisdiction. Id. Defendant, also proceeding pro se, filed a
consolidated Answer and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. (Dkt. No. 4). As explained
below, Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains only conclusory allegations, without the required factual
support. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Compliant is dismissed without prejudice to file a new
complaint that comports with the federal rules. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint to cure
any pleading deficiencies within fourteen days.

1

I. Legal Analysis
The court notes at the outset that “[a] pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Mindful of that, defendant appears to raise two
bases for dismissal. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Second, Defendant moves to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over the parties. Since the court grants the motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the jurisdictional issue will not be addressed.
A pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, the
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombley, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must assert enough facts “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level” and “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombley, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint does not “suffice if it
‘tenders naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancements.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombley, 550 U.S. at 557). The fact “that a court must accept as true all of the
allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id. “Thus, in ruling
on a motion to dismiss, a court should disregard all conclusory statements of law and consider
whether the remaining specific factual allegations, if assumed to be true, plausibly suggest the
defendant is liable.” Kan. Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011).

2

In this case, Plaintiffs include in their Complaint virtually no factual allegations
supporting their claims. The Complaint merely alleges Defendant engaged in conduct resulting
in harm. For example, Plaintiffs assert “[t]hat the Defendant . . . intentionally . . . engaged in
deceitful business practices . . . [causing] irreparable harm.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 5). By not
including any factual allegations the Complaint fails to provide Defendant with the fair notice
required under the federal rules and the case law. Consequently the Complaint must be
dismissed. The court will provide Plaintiffs with an opportunity to file an amended Complaint
that conforms with the pleading standards described above. Plaintiffs may be able to state a
claim against Defendant, but must do so with factual specificity in accordance with the federal
rules.
II. Conclusion
For the above reasons, Elizabeth Dziurkiewicz’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and
William and Melissa Dziurkiewicz’s claims against her are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within fourteen days of this order.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of June, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Judge

3