Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miller v. Cadmus Communications

March 1, 2010

ROBERT MILLER, PLAINTIFF
v.
CADMUS COMMUNICATIONS, A CENVEO COMPANY, DEFENDANT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Knoll Gardner, United States District Judge

OPINION

The matter before the court is Defendant Cadmus Communications, a Cenveo Company's Motion to Dismiss, which was filed July 2, 2009. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was filed August 3, 2009. For the following reasons, I grant defendant's motion and dismiss Counts I and II of plaintiff's Complaint.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction in this case is based upon federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

VENUE

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because the events giving rise to plaintiffs' claims allegedly occurred in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, which is within this judicial district.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff initiated this action on May 14, 2009 by filing a three-count Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The Complaint alleges a claim of disparate treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621-634 (Count I); a claim of disparate impact under ADEA (Count II); and violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, no. 222, §§ 1-13, as amended, 43 P.S. § 951-963.

Defendant removed the action to this court by Notice of Removal filed June 25, 2009. The Notice of Removal avers that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over Counts I and II (the ADEA claims) based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over all claims, including Count III (the PHRA claim), based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

According to the Notice of Removal, plaintiff is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Connecticut. The Notice of Removal further avers that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.

On July 2, 2009, defendant filed its within motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff responded in opposition on August 3, 2009. Hence this Opinion.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A claim may be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". A 12(b)(6) motion requires the court to examine the sufficiency of the complaint. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80, 84 (1957) (abrogated in other respects by Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).

Ordinarily, a court's review of a motion to dismiss is limited to the contents of the complaint, including any attached exhibits. See Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1462 (3d Cir. 1992). However, evidence beyond a complaint which the court may consider in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss includes public records (including court files, orders, records and letters of official actions or decisions of government agencies and administrative bodies), documents essential to plaintiff's claim which are attached to defendant's motion, and items appearing in the record of the case. Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, nn.1-2 (3d Cir. 1995).

Except as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9, a complaint is sufficient if it complies with Rule 8(a)(2). That rule requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d at 940.

Additionally, in determining the sufficiency of a complaint, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Worldcom, Inc. v. Graphnet, Inc., 343 F.3d 651, 653 (3d Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, a court need not credit "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions" when deciding a motion to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.