Poffenbarger v. Key Bank Corporation, Keycorp

• Court: District Court, D. Alaska
• Decided: June 30, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00049
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

JEFF POFFENBARGER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:23-cv-00049-JMK KEY BANK CORPORATION, KEYCORP; PAULA FRACKMAN, and CHRISTOPHER GORMAN, Defendants.

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

At Docket 10, Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plainly, this means that a defendant argues that even if everything in the complaint is true, the defendant did not violate the law. To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, courts consider whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true, “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”1 In conducting its review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and give the

1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In making this determination, a court may consider “materials that are submitted with and attached to the Complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)). plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.2 The Court resolves a motion under 12(b)(6) only on the pleadings before it; therefore, no additional evidence may be submitted to

defend those arguments. Local Civil Rule 7.4 requires that unless otherwise ordered, opposition memoranda must not exceed 35 pages or 10,000 words. Further, a proposed order does not need to be lodged with any cross-motion for summary judgment pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(b)(1). Failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss

could be deemed as an admission that the motion is well-taken, result in a summary ruling, and end the case.3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff has until on or before 21 days after the date of this order to serve and file on Defendant any opposition to Defendant’s Motion for to Dismiss at Docket 10.

2. Defendant has until 14 days after service of the Plaintiff’s opposition to serve and file a reply. DATED this 30th day of June, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Joshua M. Kindred JOSHUA M. KINDRED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)). 3 See generally Local Civil Rule 7.1(h).

Case No. 3:23-cv-049-JMK, Poffenbarger v. Key Bank Corporation, Keycorp et al Order Re: Motion to Dismiss