Tapsoba v. Khiani Alpharetta, LLC et al
Filing
13
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 9/11/2013. (cem)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
PATRICK NOEL TAPSOBA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KHIANI ALPHARETTA, LLC
a Georgia Limited Liability
Company, MEETA KHIANI
Individual, and ARJUN KHIANI
Individual
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:13-CV-1519-RWS
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
Defendants’ Counterclaim [8]. After reviewing the record, the Court enters the
following Order.
Background
Plaintiff filed the instant case raising claims against Defendants for
unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (Compl., Dkt. [1]) Defendants filed a
Counterclaim in their Answer, which reads in its entirety: “Counterclaim
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
against Plaintiff: for negligence (for negligence of false statements relating to
taxes avoidance) value to be furnished.” (Defs.’ Answer to Pl.’s Compl. and
Countercl., Dkt. [7]) Plaintiff now moves to dismiss Defendants’ Counterclaim
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal
Rule of Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). (Pl.’s Mot. to Dismiss Defs.’ Countercl.,
Dkt. [8] at 1-2.) Defendants have failed to file a response, and therefore the
motion is deemed unopposed. LR 7.1B, NDGa. The Court sets out the legal
standard governing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss before considering
Plaintiff’s motion on the merits.
Discussion
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a federal court is to
accept as true “all facts set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint.” Grossman v.
Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Further, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56
(2007) (internal citations omitted). However, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels
and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly,
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’
devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id.
The United States Supreme Court has dispensed with the rule that a
complaint may only be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when “‘it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561 (quoting Conley
v.Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). The Supreme Court has replaced that
rule with the “plausibility standard,” which requires that factual allegations
“raise the right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 556. The
plausibility standard “does not[, however] impose a probability requirement at
the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence [supporting the claim].” Id. In
other words, although a pleading need not contain “‘detailed factual
allegations,’” it must contain more than “‘an unadorned, the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In the instant case, Defendants have done nothing more than “tender [ a]
‘naked assertion’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Counterclaim consists solely of an
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
“unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. Defendants have failed to plead any facts in support of their
Counterclaim, and therefore the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
Defendants’ Counterclaim [8] due to be GRANTED.
Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
Defendants’ Counterclaim [8] is GRANTED
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of September, 2013.
_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
