Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180327_0000104.MNC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:54:57+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Jones v. Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Co.
Jones v. Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Co.
NATIONWIDE ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant.
Plaintiff, Devon V. Jones, appearing pro se, initiated this action against Defendant, Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Company (“NAMC”), in Guilford County Superior Court alleging, what appears to be, a breach of contract claim, and seeking damages among other relief. (See ECF No. 3.) Defendant subsequently removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) Following removal, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). (ECF No. 9.) Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 10.) For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendant's motion.
Plaintiff alleges that he brings this action “for the willful or knowing violation of accord and satisfaction, ” (ECF No. 9 ¶ 22), and he also appears to allege a breach of contract claim in his response to NAMC's motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 13 ¶¶ 2, 6, 7).
NAMC moves to dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint, ” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009); “it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992).
“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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint may fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in two ways: first, by failing to state a valid legal cause of action, i.e., a cognizable claim, see Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2012); or second, by failing to allege sufficient facts to support a legal cause of action, see Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2013). In evaluating whether a claim is stated, “a court accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, ” but does not consider “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, . . . bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement[, ] . . . unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009).

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.