Filed: Apr. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID A. KATZ, District Judge. In an order dated March 24, 2014, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 57). In denying the motion, the Court rejected Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's complaint contains insufficient factual allegations such that it amounts to the sort of formulaic recitation of the elements precluded under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Contrary to Defendan
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID A. KATZ, District Judge. In an order dated March 24, 2014, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 57). In denying the motion, the Court rejected Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's complaint contains insufficient factual allegations such that it amounts to the sort of formulaic recitation of the elements precluded under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Contrary to Defendant..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DAVID A. KATZ, District Judge.
In an order dated March 24, 2014, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 57). In denying the motion, the Court rejected Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's complaint contains insufficient factual allegations such that it amounts to the sort of formulaic recitation of the elements precluded under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Contrary to Defendants' argument, this Court found Plaintiff's complaint contained sufficient factual allegations to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)'s pleading standard.
Defendants now move for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Wlefare Fund, No. 02-5601, 89 F. App'x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). Defendants contend this Court's finding, that Plaintiff's complaint satisfies Rule 8(a)'s pleading standard, is at odds with this Court's ruling in Hanhan v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:11-oe-40007, 2013 WL 5939720 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2013). In that case, this Court found Plaintiff's complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to satisfy Rule 8(a). See id., 2013 WL 5939720, at *4.
This Court has reviewed the parties' arguments, as well as Plaintiff's complaint in this case. For the same reasons stated in this Court's March 24, 2014 order, (Doc. 57), the Court again finds that the surviving claims in Plaintiff's complaint state sufficient factual matter to satisfy Rule 8(a). Accordingly, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied. (Doc. 60).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
