Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Saint Louis-Kansas City Carpenters Regional Council v. Pace Construction Co., LLC, 4:19 CV 1509 CDP. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri Number: infdco20190918992 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CATHERINE D. PERRY , District Judge . Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' ERISA 1 claims for delinquent contributions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), alleging that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the necessary elements entitling them to relief. The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint so as to eliminate those actions "which are fatally flawed in their legal pr
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' ERISA1 claims for delinquent contributions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), alleging that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the necessary elements entitling them to relief. The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint so as to eliminate those actions "which are fatally flawed in their legal premises and deigned to fail, thereby sparing the litigants the burden of unnecessary pretrial and trial activity." Young v. City of St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain "enough facts 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. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

A plaintiff need not provide specific facts in support of his allegations, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam), but "must include sufficient factual information to provide the `grounds' on which the claim rests, and to raise a right to relief above a speculative level." Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 & n.3). This obligation requires a plaintiff to plead "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. A complaint "must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory." Id. at 562 (internal citation omitted). This standard "simply calls for enough facts to raise reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim or element]." Id. at 556. The plausibility of the plaintiff's claim is reviewed "as a whole, not plausibility of each individual allegation." Zoltek Corp. v. Structural Polymer Grp., 592 F.3d 893, 896 n.4 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

On a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, even if it appears that "actual proof of those facts is improbable" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, and reviews the complaint to determine whether its allegations show that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 555-56. The principle that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although legal conclusions can provide the framework for a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. Id. at 679.

Having reviewed plaintiffs' complaint under the relevant standards, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss. Whether plaintiffs can prove that defendant owes all of the claimed delinquent contributions or whether certain employees or work performed outside the geographical scope of the collective bargaining agreement may be exempt from defendant's contribution obligations are not issues properly before me at this time, but instead are issues to be determined on a full factual record.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the motion to dismiss [6] is denied. This case will be set for a scheduling conference by separate Order.

FootNotes


1. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1), et seq.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer