United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
J. Schwab United States District Judge
Court has diversity jurisdiction over this product liability
case. Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Defendant
Minnesota Mold and Engineering a/k/a MME Group, Inc.
(“MME”). Doc. no. 65. MME's Motion and
accompanying supportive Brief (doc. no. 66) contend that the
claim asserted against it by Plaintiff was not brought within
the two-year statute of limitations.
filed a Response and a Brief in Opposition to MME's
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. See doc. nos. 68 and
69, respectively. Plaintiff contends, inter alia,
that although the Amended Complaint, naming MME for the first
time as a defendant in this lawsuit, was filed after the
two-year statute of limitations had expired, the Plaintiff
had other venue options, including Minnesota, which carries a
four-year statute of limitations for product liability
filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition (doc.
no. 70) reasserting that this Court is bound by
Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations. This
Court concurs with MME for the reasons set forth below in
Standard of Review - Rule 12(b)(6)
Rule 12(b)(6), a Complaint must be dismissed for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Detailed factual pleading is not required -
Rule 8(a)(2) calls for a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief” - but a Complaint must set forth sufficient
factual allegations that, taken as true, set forth a
plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The plausibility standard does not
require a showing of probability that a claim has merit,
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556
(2007), but it does require that a pleading show “more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Determining the plausibility of an alleged claim is “a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Id. at 679.
upon the landmark United States Supreme Court decisions in
Twombly and Iqbal, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained that a District
Court must undertake the following three steps to determine
the sufficiency of a complaint:
First, the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff
must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should
identify allegations that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
Finally, where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a
court should assume their veracity and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.
Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209,
212 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
third step requires this Court to consider the specific
nature of the claims presented and to determine whether the
facts pled to substantiate the claims are sufficient to show
a “plausible claim for relief.” Covington v.
Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials,
710 F.3d 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013); see also Santiago v.
Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (In
reference to third step, “where there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, the court should assume their veracity
and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement for relief.”).
adjudicating a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a
claim, the Court must view all of the allegations and facts
in the Complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, and must grant the plaintiff the benefit of all
reasonable inferences that can be derived therefrom.
Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 2007)
(quoting Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d
Cir. 2005)). However, the Court need not accept inferences or
conclusory allegations that are unsupported by the facts set
forth in the complaint. See Reuben v. U.S. Airways,
Inc., 500 F. App'x 103, 104 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678); Fowler v. UPMC
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009) (stating
that District Courts “must accept all of the
Complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard
any legal conclusions”). “While legal conclusions
can provide the framework of a Complaint, they must be
supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 664.
Court may not dismiss a Complaint merely because it appears
unlikely or improbable that Plaintiff can prove the facts
alleged or will ultimately prevail on the merits.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 n.8. Instead, this Court
must ask whether the facts alleged raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the
necessary elements. Id. at 556. Generally speaking,
a Complaint that provides adequate facts to establish
“how, when, and where” will survive a Motion to
Dismiss. Fowler, 578 F.3d at 212.
short, a Motion to Dismiss should be granted if a party fails
to allege facts, which could, if established at trial,
entitle him/her to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563
Factual and ...