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.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Taylor

United States District Court, Sixth Circuit

September 4, 2013

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
GLENN R. TAYLOR, III, individually and d/b/a Intermodal USA, Inc., Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion (ECF DKT #18) of Third Party Defendant, Macy's, Inc., to Dismiss Third Party Complaint. For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

CSX alleges that Defendant, Glenn R. Taylor, III ("Taylor"), owes $117, 263.00 in freight and related charges arising from the interstate transportation of freight for the period from January 2011 to February 2011. In a previous action (Case No. 4:11CV1016 - United States District Judge Benita Pearson), CSX obtained a default judgment against Intermodal USA ("IUSA") for the freight charges. In this suit, Taylor asserts that GRT Transport, Inc., a company owned by him, received the bills which are the subject of Plaintiff's Complaint, and that the bills represent shipments of goods on behalf of Macy's Inc.

Taylor's single-count Third Party Complaint against Macy's is captioned: "Breach of Contract/Account." Taylor avers, without attaching a copy of the contract or account, that Macy's owes GRT in excess of $75, 000.00. Further: "If in fact it is found that the answering Defendant is personally indebted to the Plaintiff, which allegations and obligation he denies, then Macy's, Inc. is obligated to pay Defendant all sums due and owing for shipping costs of Macy's goods via CSX by and through IUSA and/or GRT Transport, Inc." (Third Party Complaint, ECF DKT #8, ΒΆ 11).

Third Party Defendant Macy's moves for dismissal of the Third Party Complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Civil Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

In deciding a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). The court need not, however, accept conclusions of law as true:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." As the Court held in [ Bell Atlantic v. ] Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955 [(2007)], the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require "detailed factual allegations, " but it demands more than an unadorned, the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id. at 555. A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual enhancement." Id. at 557.
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement, " but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a Defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a Defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. at 557.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

According to the Sixth Circuit, the standard described in Twombly and Iqbal "obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible ." Weisbarth v. Geauga Park Dist. , 499 F.3d 538, 541 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Iqbal v. Hasty , 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2nd Cir.2007)).

The Court should disregard conclusory allegations, including legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555; J & J Sports Prods. v. Kennedy , No.1:10CV2740, 2011 ...


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.