United States District Court, D. Nevada
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is a motion to dismiss from plaintiff Dreamdealers USA, LLC d/b/a Exotics Racing ("Dreamdealers") and third-party defendant Brandon Grade ("Grade"). (Doc. #20). The motion seeks dismissal of counterclaims raised by defendant Lee Poh Sun aka James Lee Poh Sun ("Lee"). Lee has filed an opposition (doc. #24), to which Dreamdealers and Grade have replied (doc #26).
This case arises from an incident at the Las Vegas Speedway. Dreamdealers allows customers to rent exotic cars and drive them around the speedway as part of a high-speed racing experience.
Lee decided to take part in the racing experience and drove several of Dreamdealers' exotic cars. While driving the cars, Lee was paired up with an employee of Dreamdealers, Grade. While driving a Lamborghini, Lee crashed into a wall, causing damage to himself and the car.
In March, 2013, Dreamdealers initiated the instant action in order to recover damages resulting from the loss of property caused by the car accident. Due to the requirements associated with serving foreign citizens, Plaintiff was unable to serve Lee until January, 2014.
In August, 2013, before being served by Dreamdealers, Lee sued Dreamdealers in state court (case no. A-13-686729-C). In September, 2013, Dreamdealers removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court, District of Nevada (case no. 2:13-cv-01605-MMD-NJK).
On March, 11, 2013, the two lawsuits between these parties were consolidated.
In Lee's answer to the complaint from Dreamdealers and Grade (doc. #14), Lee raised 13 counterclaims which Dreamdealers and Grade ask this court to dismiss.
A. Standard of Review
A court may dismiss a plaintiff's complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide "[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands "more than labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citation omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citation omitted).
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step approach district courts are to apply when considering motions to dismiss. First, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint; however, legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. at 1949. Second, the court must consider whether the factual allegations in the complaint allege a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff's complaint alleges facts that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 1949.
Where the complaint does not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has "alleged - but not shown - that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. (internal quotations omitted). When the allegations in a complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable ...