Opinion
Case No. 6:08-cv-1165-Orl-31DAB.
October 2, 2008
ORDER
This matter came before the Court without oral argument upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 10).
I. Background
II. Standard Of Review
29 U.S.C. § 651et seq. see, e.g., Jackson v. Okaloosa County, Fla.,21 F.3d 1531153410see also GSW, Inc. v. Long County, Ga., 999 F.2d 15081510 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411421Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,326 F.3d 11831185
In reviewing a complaint on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "courts must be mindful that the Federal Rules require only that the complaint contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" U.S. v. Baxter Intern., Inc., 345 F.3d 866, 880 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with particularity every element of a cause of action. Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001). However, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds for his or her entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). The complaint's factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 1965.
III. Analysis
Defendant contends, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed to adequately plead material facts to support its claims, including the citations issued, the time frames for the citations, or that Defendant actually received timely notice of the violations. Defendant's argument is without merit. Unlike the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules do not require "ultimate" or "material facts" at the pleading stage; all that is required is a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Hill v. State of Fla. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 715 F.Supp. 346, 349 (M.D. Fla. 1989); FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Here, the Complaint clearly contains enough information to satisfy Rule 8. If, after discovery, a factual dispute arises as to Plaintiff's compliance with the various pre-suit procedures required under the Act, Defendant may file an appropriate motion for summary judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida.