Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180320_0000665.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:49:59+00:00

Document:
PhD Fitness, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Defendant.
This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant PhD Fitness, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff John Sandviks' Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 28). For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22).
The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because (1) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5, 000, 000.00, exclusive of interests and costs; (2) Defendant is a citizen of California and Plaintiff is a citizen of South Carolina (complete diversity exists); and (3) there are 100 or more members of the proposed Plaintiff class. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; (ECF No. 17 at ¶ 9). When a federal court sits in diversity jurisdiction, it applies federal procedural law and state substantive law. See Gasperini v. Ctr. For Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427 (1996).
On August 11, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief. (ECF No. 22.) On September 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 28), and Defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 31). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Response (ECF No. 36), and Defendant filed a Supplemental Sur Reply (ECF No. 39).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted “challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see also Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (“A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.”). To be legally sufficient, a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “should not be granted unless it appears certain that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would support its claim and would entitle it to relief.” Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court should accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 251 (4th Cir. 1999). “To 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.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

References: § 1332
 § 1332
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.