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.

Isabella A. Pierce v. Lowe's Home Centers

December 13, 2010

ISABELLA A. PIERCE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ambrose, District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT

SYNOPSIS

Defendant, Lowe's Home Center, Inc., filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 26). Plaintiff, Isabella A. Pierce, filed a response thereto. (Docket No. 29). After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 26) is granted in part and denied in part as more fully set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff originally initiated this action in state court on November 3, 2009. (Docket No. 1, ¶2). Defendant then removed it to this court and filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 28, 2010. (Docket Nos. 1 and 3). In response thereto, Plaintiff conceded that her Complaint was "not artfully drafted" (Docket No. 7, p. 3) and agreed that her "Complaint should be amended to more fully set forth [her] viable claims." (Docket No. 6, p. 1). As a result, this court permitted Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 8).

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 10, 2010. (Docket No. 14). Defendant then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. In ruling upon the same, I agreed with Plaintiff's admission that the Amended Complaint was conclusory, deficient, lacking in factual averments and contained incomplete and disorderly legal theories. (Docket No. 22). I held that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint did not even provide a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, let alone provide any sort of facts surrounding the violations concluded by Plaintiff. Consequently, I dismissal Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 22).

In an attempt to cure the deficiencies, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 23, 2010. On September 2, 2010, Plaintiff sought a voluntary dismissal of Count V (Battery) of the Second Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 24). I granted the dismissal of Count V (Battery).

Again, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the other four counts in the Second Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 26). The other four counts in the Second Amended Complaint are: Count I -- violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Con. Stat. §§951, et seq. ("PHRA"); Count II -- violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"); Count III -- violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq. ("ADA"); and Count IV -- violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§621, et seq. ("ADEA"). (Docket No. 23). Plaintiff also makes fleeting references to retaliation under the PHRA and the ADA, but does not state a separate count for retaliation. See, Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶7, 29.

II. LEGAL DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When deciding whether to grant or deny a 12(b)(6) motion the Supreme Court has held:

While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff=s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).

Bell Atlantic Co. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (cites and footnote omitted)(emphasis added); see also, Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (a plaintiff=s factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level).

Most recently, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court held, A. . . a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the ...


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.