Herron v. Tears of Eden

E.D. Missouri

Herron v. Tears of Eden

DecidedDecember 3, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00425

StatusUnknown

This text of Herron v. Tears of Eden (Herron v. Tears of Eden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herron v. Tears of Eden, (E.D. Mo. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL HERRON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00425-MTS ) TEARS OF EDEN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court, through its subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), is this four-count tort action arising under state law. The action presently is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which seeks dismissal of Count II and Count III of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Doc. [77]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). After a complete review of the First Amended Complaint, the Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, and the Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion, and after considering the proper standard of review, the Court concludes that Count II and Count III of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint state a plausible claim for relief. See Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872–73 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining standard of review on motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (“[A] complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [77], is DENIED. All claims within Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint remain. Dated this 3rd day of December 2024. Th aaroaew T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL HERRON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00425-MTS ) TEARS OF EDEN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court, through its subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), is this four-count tort action arising under state law. The action presently is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which seeks dismissal of Count II and Count III of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Doc. [77]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). After a complete review of the First Amended Complaint, the Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, and the Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion, and after considering the proper standard of review, the Court concludes that Count II and Count III of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint state a plausible claim for relief. See Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872–73 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining standard of review on motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (“[A] complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [77], is DENIED. All claims within Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint remain. Dated this 3rd day of December 2024. Th aaroaew T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Herron v. Tears of Eden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herron-v-tears-of-eden-moed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack