Gilliam
Monex Deposit Co. v. Gilliam
Opinion
Opinion
Selna, J.
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Denying Defendants Motion to Dismiss Count Three of First Amended Complaint (fid 6-1-09)
Defendants and Counter Plaintiffs Jason Gilliam, Steven Bowman, and Richard Gilliam (collectively, “Defendants”) move to dismiss the third claim of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs and Counter Defendants Monex Deposit Company and Monex Credit Company (collectively, “Monex”) oppose. The motion is DENIED.
I. Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A plaintiff must state “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility” if the plaintiff pleads facts that “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1940 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion under Twombly , the Court must follow a two-pronged approach. First,…