United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
J. Schwab, United States District Court Judge.
the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim
and Brief in Support of same filed by Defendant Holdings
Acquisition Co, L.P. Doc. no. 75 and doc. no.
76. Plaintiffs filed a Brief in Opposition. Doc. no.
81. The Defendant's Motion will be
DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
Standard of Review - Rule 12(b)(6)
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Federal Courts require
notice pleading, as opposed to the heightened standard of
fact pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) 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 on which it rests.'”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
554, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 47 (1957)).
upon the landmark United States Supreme Court decisions in
Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009), 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
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). “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 v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 212
(3d Cir. 2009).
short, a Motion to Dismiss should not be granted if a party
alleges facts, which could, if established at trial, entitle
him/her to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 n.8.
the Court writes primarily for the benefit of the parties,
the factual background shall be truncated. The Court assumes
all facts set forth in the Complaints to be true solely for
the purpose of deciding these Motions. Plaintiffs are blind
or visually impaired individuals who claim Defendants'
websites are not accessible to them in violation of the Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
identifies the lead Plaintiff as a “serial website
tester” with at “least thirteen (13) active cases
in the Western District of Pennsylvania.” Defendant
notes that the instant case appears “to be yet another
cookie cutter Complaint [where] she alleges that
www.riverscasino.com, www.riverscasinoandresort.com and
www.sugarhousecasino.com fail to comply with the ADA.”
Thus, this Court deduces that Defendant operates the three
essentially argues that Plaintiffs' Complaint must be
dismissed because the DOJ has never issued implementing
regulations for website accessibility. Defendant reasons that
because the DOJ has failed to implement regulations for
website activity, the Plaintiff cannot sufficiently plead an