Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_08-cv-00038/USCOURTS-ared-2_08-cv-00038-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HELENA DIVISION

ASHWOOD JANITORIAL SERVICES,

CAROLYN ASHWOOD, Individually and

as Owner, and NATHAN ASHWOOD,

Individually and as General Manager PLAINTIFFS

V. NO. 2:08-CV-00038

W.W. CONTRACTOR, INC., MATTHEW

FRIESSER, Vice President of W.W.

Contractor, Inc., GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION and CAMRON DOSS, In

his Official Capacity as Agent and

Contracting Officer on Behalf of

General Services Administration DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. 3). No answer to the Motion is before the Court.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was made before the case was

removed to federal court and is partially based on the Arkansas

Rules of Civil Procedure, which are no longer applicable. For a

breach of contract claim in Arkansas, the Plaintiff must plead the

existence of a contract obligating defendant to the plaintiff,

breach by the defendant, and damages suffered by the plaintiff

because of the beach. See Rabalaias v. Barnett, 683 S.W.2d 919,

921 (Ark. 1985). Pleading those elements satisfies the federal

pleading requirements. See Caldwell v. Guardian Trust Co., 26 F.2d

218, 223 (8th Cir. 1928). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the

district court must accept the allegations contained in the

complaint as true, and all allegations must be viewed in the light

Case 2:08-cv-00038-RTD Document 22 Filed 09/17/08 Page 1 of 2
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

most favorable to plaintiffs. Stodghill v. Wellston Sch. Dist.,

512 F.3d 472, 476 (8th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs have pled the

existence of a contract that obligates Defendants, Plaintiffs’

performance of the contract, a breach of the contract by the

Defendants, and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of

the breach. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ have met the pleading

requirements for a Breach of Contract action. Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss is DENIED. 

Plaintiffs have ten days from the date of this order to

respond to Defendants’ Counterclaim (Doc. 18) or a default will be

issued. Plaintiffs’ also have ten days from the date of this order

to respond to Counterclaimants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of September, 2008.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson 

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge 

Case 2:08-cv-00038-RTD Document 22 Filed 09/17/08 Page 2 of 2