*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DMSION No.5:IO-CV-278-D REIMAXLLC, )
) )
Plaintiff,
) v. ) ORDER )
CAROLINA REAL TYMAX, INC., )
MAREK KUCHARSKI, and )
NILA MACEDA KUCHARSKI, )
)
Defendants. ) On August 23, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to strike the pro se answer of corporate defendant Carolina Realty Max, Inc. [D.E. 10] and filed a motion for a more definite statement [D.E. 12]. On September 2, 2010, defendants (through counsel) filed an amended answer to the first amended complaint [D.E. 15]. In light ofthe amended answer, plaintiff's motions [D.E. 10, 12] are DENIED as moot.
On September 2, 2010, defendants Marek Kucharski and Nila Kucharski filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [D.E. 16]. Plaintiff responded in opposition [D.E. 21].
The court recognizes the standard that governs a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroftv. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,1949-50 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.s. 544, 570 (~007); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298,302 (4th Cir. 2008); Goodman v. Praxair. Inc., 494 F.3d458, 464-65 (4th Cir. 2007) (en banc); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam).
Case 5:10-cv-00278-D Document 23 Filed 10/13/10 Page 1 of 2 *2 The court has reviewed the first amended complaint in light ofthe governing standard. The motion to dismiss [D.E. 16] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED. This J3.. day of October 2010.
~ __ .:kv~
~SC.DEVERm United States District Judge 2 Case 5:10-cv-00278-D Document 23 Filed 10/13/10 Page 2 of 2