claimupon be granted[.]"FED.R.CIV.P. l2(b)(6).For complaintto surviveaaRulel2(b)(6) granted[.]" FED. R. Cry. P. 12(b)(6). Foraa complaintto motion Rule 12(6)(6) motiontoto dismiss,it mustccontain dismiss, itmust ontain ""enough enough facts factstto ostate claimtoreliefthatisplausibleonitsface." stateaa claim to relief that is plausibleon its face." BellAtl. Bell Atl. Corp.v. Twombly, 550U.S.544,570(2007).Facialplausibility requires factsthat v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Facial plausibility requires facts that allowthe "todrawthereasonable inference thatthedefendant isliableforthe allow the court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged." misconduct Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009).Essentially, underthe misconduct alleged." Ashcroftv. v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Essentially, under the federalrulesa complaint isliberally construed infavoroftheplaintiff andallwell-pleaded federal rules a complaint is liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff and all well-pleaded factsaretakenas true. 566U.S.at v. 551U.S.89,94 facts are taken as true. Ashcroft, 566 U.S. at 678-79; Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).Thatsaid,"[t]hreadbare recitalsoftheelements ofacauseofaction by (2007). That said, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mereconclusory statements, donot 556U.S.at 678.Rulel2(b)(6) mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. Rule 12(6)(6) dismissal ifthecourtdetermines isappropriate beyond doubtthattheplaintiff areasonable dismissal is appropriate if the court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff
4835-7047-5552.I
Silverado Appx. 0413 No. 1-15-567-CV 1499 I
canprove can prove no setof noset to support aa claim of facts to that w claim that would ntitlehhim ouldeentitle to relief. imto Tex. v.Tex. relief. Scanlan v.
A&M 343F.3d533,536 Univ.,343 A&M Univ., (5thCir.2003). F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).
ARGUMENT ARGUMENT
A. donothave A.Plaintiffs' do standing not have standing inthis in case. this case. itJ Plaintiffs ll. Plaintiffs 11. lackstanding lack to pursue standing to claimson pursueclaims behalfof onbehalf ofRubyPeterson andthis Ruby Peterson and this case mustbe casemust be 41 recite suitisis thatsuit ea dismissed dismissed for want o forwant offsubject Plaintiffs subject matter jurisdiction.9 Plaintiffs own pleadings ownpleadings recite that
beingbrought being onbehalf brought on ofRubyPeterson behalfof byMackey Ruby Peterson by Mackey Peterson, DonPeterson Peterson,Don andLonny Peterson and Lonny
Peterson Peterson as "Next Friend" as "Next of Ruby P Friend" ofRuby eterson. Peterson. The Amended TheFourth Amended Original Original Petition Petition asserts asserts Sd aanewcause new cause ofofaction forbreach action for oftrust breach of trustand/or fiduciary and/orfiduciary duty againstSilverado forthe dutyagainst Silverado for the aa failurettoohonor failure Ruby's honorRuby's new powers newpowers of Allclaims ofattorney.10 All brought claims brought on behalfofRuby onbehalf of Ruby Peterson byPlaintiffs Peterson bedismissed mustbe by Plaintiffs must forlack dismissed for ofstanding. lack of standing.
12.A 12. acknowledged byPlaintiffs Assacknowledged several by Plaintiffs several timesin times intheir Amended their Fourth Amended Original Original Petition, Petition,
Ruby Peterson RubyPeterson executed executed durable aa durable ofattorney powerof power attomey infavor in ofCarol favor of Manley Carol Manley andDavid and David
Petersonin Peterson Thedurable in 1993)1 The ofattorney powerof durable power attomeyexecuted by RubyPetersoninfavorof executedby Ruby Peterson in favor of
Manley CarolManley Carol andDavid and Peterson David Peterson was ratified was ratified by thisCourt bythis Court on recommendation onrecommendation of the ofthe appointed appointed guardians guardians ad Ruby adlitem.I2 Ruby Peterson Peterson was declared