Kitterlin v. North American Canoe Tours, Inc., 2:12-cv-00020

Plaintiff Carol Kitterlin sues North American Canoe Tours, Inc. (NACT) and David Harraden in the Middle District of Florida.
Defendants move to dismiss Counts I–II for failure to state a claim and seek to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Count III.
Complaint claims NACT was an employer covered by Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) and identifies at least 9 employees.
Court applies Rule 12(b)(6) standards, requiring plausible factual allegations and not mere conclusory statements.
Court grants the motion, dismisses Counts I–II without prejudice, and permits amendment within 14 days if plaintiff can plead the requisite 15+ employees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint plausibly alleges NACT as an employer under Title VII/FCRA.	Kitterlin alleges NACT is an employer under Title VII and FCRA with 15+ employees.	NACT lacks factual allegations showing 15+ employees.	Counts I–II inadequately alleged employer status; dismissed with leave to amend.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must be plausible, not mere conclusory statements)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (threadbare recitals fail to state a claim)
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (establishes employer-threshold requirements as elements of Title VII claim)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (plaintiff's claims must be accepted as true at screening stage)
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (U.S. 2002) (requires plausible inferences to show entitlement to relief)
Harper v. Blockbuster Entm’t Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998) (applies Title VII/FCRA analyses to analogous facts)