Scott et al v. High Tech, Inc.

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

M.D. Tenn.November 11, 2016

4820-4719-5964 v1 2832072-000349 11/11/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION CHRISTOPHER SCOTT, AUGUST MOSES, ) ANNA BUPASIRI, JULIANN HARRIS, ) TRUDY CAMPBELL, ADRIAN BROOKS, ) and SCOTT REYNOLDS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. 3:15-cv-0766 v. ) ) Judge Campbell HIGH-TECH INSTITUTE, INC. d/b/a ) Magistrate Judge Holmes ANTHEM EDUCATION, ANTHEM CAREER ) COLLEGE and ANTHEM COLLEGE; ) Jury Demand FCC HOLDINGS, INC.; EDUCATION ) TRAINING CORPORATION; ) HIGH-TECH INSTITUTE HOLDINGS, INC., ) and IEC CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants High-Tech Institute, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Education and Anthem Career College (“Anthem”), FCC Holdings, Inc. (“FCC”), Education Training Corporation (“Education Training”), and High-Tech Institute Holdings, Inc. (“High-Tech Holdings”) (collectively, “Defendants”)1 submit this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 In this case, seven Plaintiffs are attempting to bring a myriad of employment discrimination and retaliation claims without alleging a single discriminatory comment or a 1 The parties referred to collectively as “Defendants” in this Response do not include defendant IEC Corporation. Undersigned counsel does not represent IEC Corporation and Plaintiffs moved to dismiss IEC as a defendant when they moved to file their Third Amended Complaint. [Dkt. No. 61]. 2 In filing this Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants do not concede that any Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Moses and Scott are proper parties. Defendants address the other Plaintiffs’ claims only because the Third Amended Complaint has been filed. However, Defendants are actively seeking reconsideration of the order granting Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add the additional Plaintiffs. Case 3:15-cv-00766 Document 69 Filed 11/11/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 885 2 4820-4719-5964 v1 2832072-000349 11/11/2016 single discriminatory or retaliatory action. Instead, Plaintiffs rely exclusively on threadbare conclusory statements and bare-bones legal conclusions. Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims is appropriate because the Third Amended Complaint fails to satisfy the pleading standard set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the Third Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish the essential elements of Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the Third Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In support of this Motion, Defendants rely on the contemporaneously-filed Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion to Dismiss and dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Ben H. Bodzy Ben H. Bodzy, BPR No. 023517 Jesse Ford Harbison, BPR No. 032105 BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. Baker Donelson Center 211 Commerce Street, Suite 800 Nashville, Tennessee 37201 Telephone (615) 726-7363 Facsimile (615) 744-7363 Attorneys for Defendants Case 3:15-cv-00766 Document 69 Filed 11/11/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 886 3 4820-4719-5964 v1 2832072-000349 11/11/2016 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 11, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was sent via the Court's CM/ECF filing system to : Douglas B. Janney III 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, Tennessee 37215 doug@janneylaw.com /s/ Ben H. Bodzy Ben H. Bodzy Case 3:15-cv-00766 Document 69 Filed 11/11/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 887