Moore v. Nash, Inc.
5:14-cv-00061
W.D. Ky.Feb 18, 2015Background
- Nash, Inc. moved to dismiss Moore's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) in a Kentuckyworkers' compensation retaliation claim.
- Moore alleges termination in violation of Kentucky Revised Statutes § 342.197.
- The court applies federal pleading standards (Twombly/Iqbal) to the removed state-law action.
- Moore's complaint is described as barebones and conclusory with no factual grounds for relief beyond labels.
- The court concludes Moore fails to plead a causative link between protected activity and termination.
- Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is granted; the case is concluded as a final and appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore pleaded a causative link between protected activity and termination. | Moore contends protected activity and discharge are connected. | Moore fails to allege any causal connection between filing a workers' claim and termination. | Claim dismissed for lack of causation. |
| Whether Moore's claim survives Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards. | Moore contends the state pleading standard should apply. | Federal pleading standards apply to removed cases; claim is not plausible. | Dismissed as facially implausible under Twombly/Iqbal. |
| Whether federal pleading standards apply to removed state-law complaints. | State pleading standards should govern since the claim arises under state law. | Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal apply to removed actions as federally governed proceedings. | Federal pleading standards apply; dismissal appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires plausible claims, not mere speculation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (factual pleading must show plausibility)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (federal rules govern removed state-law claims)
- Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10 (6th Cir. 1987) (standard to survive Rule 12(b)(6) emphasizes plausible claims)
- Henderson v. Ardco, Inc., 247 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2001) (causation and protected activity elements in retaliation claims)
- Great Lakes Steel v. Deggendorf, 716 F.2d 1101 (6th Cir. 1983) (framework for evaluating pleading adequacy)
- Vanhook v. Britthaven of Somerset, Inc., 2007 WL 2787906 (Ky. App. 2007) (cited for state pleading context (WL; not official reporter) (omit if needed as WL))
- Grand Aerie Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Carneyhan, 169 S.W.3d 840 (Ky. 2005) (notice-pleading standard referenced in state-context discussions)