United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
DAVID M. SARANDOS Plaintiff,
VERNON D. SINGER et al. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Motion of Defendants Vernon
D. Singer and Kip Bilderback to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims. (ECF No. 6). The Motion is fully briefed and ready
28, 2019, the Pro Se Plaintiff Sarandos filed the instant
Complaint alleging two counts of identity theft. Plaintiff
brought Count I for identity theft against Defendant Singer
and Count II for identity theft against Defendant Bilderback.
The Plaintiff also named several organizations including
Millsap & Singer LLC, and Duetche Bank National Trust
Company as entities the Defendants were allegedly doing
business as. (ECF No. 1). On August 2, 2019, the Defendants
moved to dismiss the case. (ECF No. 6). Defendant's argue
that Plaintiff has failed to properly establish subject
matter jurisdiction in this case, has failed to comply with
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 pleading standard, and
has failed to state any cognizable claim. (ECF No. 7).
Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides for a motion to dismiss based on
the “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” To survive a motion to dismiss a complaint
must show that “‘the pleader is entitled to
relief,' in order to ‘give the defendant fair
notice of what the… claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.'” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). See also Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007).
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to defeat a
motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009)(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
“[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for
relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Id. at
679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The pleading
standard of rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed
factual allegations, ” but it demands more than
accusation.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
in regard to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion, the Supreme Court holds:
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations,
[citations omitted] a plaintiff's obligation to provide
the “grounds” of his “entitle[ment] to
relief” requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to
dismiss, courts “are not bound to accept as true a
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. See also Gregory v.
Dillard's, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 473 (8th Cir.
2009)(en banc)(“[A] plaintiff ‘must assert facts
that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that the pleader has
the right he claims…, rather than facts that are
merely consistent with such a right.'”)(quoting
Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiative, 509 F.3d 517,
521 (8th Cir. 2007)).
“a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it
strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is
improbable.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556
(citation omitted). “The issue is not whether plaintiff
will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled
to offer evidence to support [his or her] claims.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
(abrogated on other grounds, Horlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800 (1982)).
Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
argues that Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ...