MAKRIS v. DEX IMAGING, INC., 8:13-CV-01340-EAK-AEP. (2013)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20130705a01
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jul. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2013
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Complaint (Doc. 9) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 12). Defendants argue that Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint fails to properly state a claim for relief under the standards evinced in both Bell All. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Both decisions provide multiple useful yardsticks and vant
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Complaint (Doc. 9) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 12). Defendants argue that Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint fails to properly state a claim for relief under the standards evinced in both Bell All. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Both decisions provide multiple useful yardsticks and vanta..
More
ORDER
ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Complaint (Doc. 9) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 12).
Defendants argue that Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint fails to properly state a claim for relief under the standards evinced in both Bell All. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Both decisions provide multiple useful yardsticks and vantage points for proper pleading, among them the requirement that the complaint provide the Defendant "`fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Iqbal at 698-99, (quoting Twombly at 555, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (omission in original)). Though Defendants lament the pleading, Plaintiff has already provided sufficient fair notice for Defendants to supply a detailed response to the claim proceeding down dual paths invoking Florida Statute Chapter 448 and the breach of employment contract. Accordingly it is
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III is DENIED.
Defendants shall file an answer to Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) within 10 days of this date.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
