United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

FRISCO FERTILITY CENTER, PLLC, 

d/b/a DALLAS IFV,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JULIAN ESCOBAR, M.D., and EH 

FERTILITY PLLC, d/b/a CONCEIVE 

FERTILITY,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-CV-617

Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22) and 

Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Support of their Motion to 

Dismiss (Dkt. #55). Having considered the motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds 

that the motions should be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Frisco Fertility Center, PLLC brought claims for violations of the Defend Trade Secrets 

Act, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, knowing participation in breach of fiduciary 

duty, and tortious interference with contract against Defendants Julian Escobar, M.D. and EH 

Fertility PLLC (Dkt. #1) (the “Defendants”).

On September 15, 2023, the Defendants filed their Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss 

(Dkt. #22). On October 13, 2023, Frisco Fertility Center, PLLC filed its response (Dkt. #32). On 

October 27, 2023, the Defendants filed their reply (Dkt. #37). On February 27, 2024, the 

Case 4:23-cv-00617-ALM Document 57 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1686
2

Defendants filed an opposed motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in favor of their motion 

to dismiss (Dkt. #55; Dkt. #56).

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that each claim in a complaint include a 

“short and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P.

8(a)(2). Each claim must include enough factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows a party to move for dismissal of an action when the complaint 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When considering 

a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the 

plaintiff’s complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bowlby v. City 

of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court may consider “the complaint, any 

documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that 

are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays 

Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). The Court must then determine whether the 

complaint states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. “A claim has facial plausibility when 

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “But where the well-pleaded facts do not 

permit the [C]ourt to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has 

alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—’that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 

(quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)).

Case 4:23-cv-00617-ALM Document 57 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1687
3

In Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency 

of a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. First, the Court should identify and 

disregard conclusory allegations, for they are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 664. Second, the Court “consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to determine 

if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. “This standard ‘simply calls for enough facts 

to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary claims or 

elements.’” Morgan v. Hubert, 335 F. App’x 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). This 

evaluation will “be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 

experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

Thus, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678 (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

ANALYSIS

After reviewing the current complaint, and the arguments contained in the briefing, the 

Court finds that Frisco Fertility Center, PLLC has stated plausible claims for relief. The contents 

of the Defendants’ proposed Supplemental Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss does not 

impact this finding (Dkt. #56).

Case 4:23-cv-00617-ALM Document 57 Filed 03/04/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1688
4

CONCLUSION

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22)

is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental 

Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #55) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cv-00617-ALM Document 57 Filed 03/04/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1689