Austin Glick v. Western Power Sports, Inc, 944 F.3d 714

On August 20, 2015, Glick was injured allegedly because a Leatt neck brace caused or failed to prevent serious injury; he sued Leatt and retailer Western Power Sports, Inc. d/b/a Fly Racing (WPS).
On September 28, 2017 Glick filed an amended complaint asserting strict products liability, breach of warranty, negligence, gross negligence, and consumer fraud.
Leatt moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); WPS failed to file a timely answer by the deadline.
The district court granted Leatt’s motion, concluding the amended complaint contained almost no factual allegations and consisted largely of legal conclusions.
Leatt’s counsel then filed a 12(b)(6) motion on behalf of WPS; the district court denied Glick’s motion for entry of default against WPS and granted WPS’s motion to dismiss. Judgment was entered for both defendants.
Glick appealed; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the complaint failed plausibly to plead claims and default was properly denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amended complaint pleads sufficient facts to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion	Glick: allegations and representations about the brace give fair notice and permit reasonable inferences (e.g., motocross use, spinal injury)	Leatt/WPS: complaint is mostly conclusory recitals of elements and lacks essential factual allegations required by Iqbal/Twombly	Affirmed dismissal: complaint fails to allege sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim
Whether entry of default against WPS was warranted despite its late response	Glick: WPS’s untimely response was intentional/bad faith and prejudicial, so default judgment should be entered	WPS/District Court: even if untimely, default inappropriate where complaint’s unchallenged allegations do not establish a legitimate cause of action	Affirmed denial of default: court properly refused default because the sole factual allegation was insufficient to state a claim (court must ensure unchallenged facts state a viable claim)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (antitrust pleading standard articulating plausibility concept)
Marshall v. Baggett, 616 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2010) (default inappropriate when complaint fails to state a claim)
Smithrud v. City of St. Paul, 746 F.3d 391 (8th Cir. 2014) (review standard for 12(b)(6) — factual allegations accepted, legal conclusions not)
Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2010) (court must ensure unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action before entering default)
Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for default-judgment denials)
Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (complaint read as a whole for plausibility assessment)
Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 183 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1999) (court need not accept conclusory allegations)
Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486 (8th Cir. 1990) (same principle regarding conclusory allegations)
Wright v. Brooke Grp. Ltd., 652 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2002) (outlines elements of design defect, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, and negligence under Iowa law)