Opinion
CASE NO: 8:10-cv-2359-T-26AEP.
February 15, 2011
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted (Dkt. 22). After careful consideration of the allegations of the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 9), the Court concludes that a response is unnecessary and the motion should be denied.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
All factual allegations of the complaint are considered true and all inferences from those facts will be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Speaker v. U.S. Dep't of Health Human Servs. Ctrs. of Disease Control and Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir. 2010). The complaint must allege "only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The factual allegations must be "enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545). "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129, S.Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
ANALYSIS
Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief in the First Amended Complaint because the Employee Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) limits available remedies to fiduciaries, specifically excluding common law, as opposed to equitable, relief. Defendants further argue that the claims of equitable restitution, "enforcement of provisions," and imposition of a constructive trust fail because the property sought to be reimbursed to the trust is not specific identifiable property capable of tracing. The Court finds that all of Defendants' arguments are best left for resolution on future proceedings on the merits rather than a motion to dismiss. The Court is unequipped to engage in fact-finding tasks in the present posture of this case. Moreover, in the Court's view, the allegations are sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and to state a plausible claim for relief against Defendants. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561-62, 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1968-69, 1974.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted (Dkt. 22) is DENIED.
(2) Defendants shall file an answer and defenses to the First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of this order.DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on February 16, 2011.