GANNETT MHC MEDIA, INC. v. CAPITAL MOTOR LINES, 3:15-cv-424/MCR/CJK. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20160907a57
Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS , Chief District Judge . This is a cost recovery action involving the cleanup of Defendants' alleged environmental pollution of approximately one-quarter of an acre of real property located at 111 East Romana Street, Pensacola, Florida. Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint on statute of limitations grounds. To survive a Motion to Dismiss, the Complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim of relief that is plausible on
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS , Chief District Judge . This is a cost recovery action involving the cleanup of Defendants' alleged environmental pollution of approximately one-quarter of an acre of real property located at 111 East Romana Street, Pensacola, Florida. Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint on statute of limitations grounds. To survive a Motion to Dismiss, the Complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim of relief that is plausible on i..
More
ORDER
M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge.
This is a cost recovery action involving the cleanup of Defendants' alleged environmental pollution of approximately one-quarter of an acre of real property located at 111 East Romana Street, Pensacola, Florida. Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint on statute of limitations grounds. To survive a Motion to Dismiss, the Complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim of 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, 547 (2007)). Dismissal based on a statute of limitations defense, however, is appropriate only if it is "apparent from the face of the complaint that the claim is time-barred." La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004).
On review of the Complaint in this case, the court cannot say that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. More facts are needed to decide the issue, and thus the matter will be decided by the court on a more fully developed factual record in connection with the pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
