Helayas Logistics LLC v. Stineman

Opinion

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

HELAYAS LOGISTICS LLC, § § Plaintiff, § v. § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-00210 § Judge Mazzant GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE, § § Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #22). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion should be DENIED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a limited liability company with members located in Texas. Plaintiff is in the business of transporting cargo. When Plaintiff suffered a cargo loss, it filed a claim under the insurance policy it carried with Defendant Great Lakes Insurance SE (“Great Lakes”), a German corporation with its principal place of business in Germany. When the claim was denied, Plaintiff filed this suit against Great Lakes. Plaintiff asserts that it purchased the insurance policy at issue through agents Roman—an agent for Streamline—and Stineman—an agent for another company. Plaintiff’s suit alleges that Great Lakes committed a breach of contract and violated multiple provisions of the Texas Insurance Code. On May 7, 2020, Defendant filed the present Motion (Dkt. #22). On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Response (Dkt. #24). Defendants did not file a Reply. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that each claim in a complaint include a “short and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Each claim must include enough factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows a party to move for dismissal of an action when the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff’s complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court may consider “the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). The Court must then determine whether the complaint states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “But where the well- pleaded facts do not permit the [C]ourt to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). In Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. First, the Court should identify and disregard conclusory allegations, for they are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664. Second, the Court “consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. “This standard ‘simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary claims or elements.’” Morgan v. Hubert, 335 F. App’x 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). This evaluation will “be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Thus, “[t]o 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 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). ANALYSIS After reviewing the Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the motion to dismiss, and the response, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated plausible claims for defeating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. CONCLUSION

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #22) is hereby DENIED.