Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hoosman v. 1St Class Security, Inc.

United States District Court, Eighth Circuit

November 4, 2013

CORNELL A. HOOSMAN and DELISHA R. HOOSMAN, Plaintiffs,
v.
1st CLASS SECURITY, INC. et al. Defendants.

LINDA R. READE, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The matters before the court are Defendants 1st Class Security, Inc., Menard, Inc., Brian Haugen, Danielle Gibbs and Brian Sampson's (collectively, "Defendants") "Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule[s] of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1)" ("Motion to Dismiss") (docket no. 11) and Plaintiffs Cornell A. Hoosman and Delisha R. Hoosman's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") "Motion for Leave to File [a] First Amended Complaint" ("Motion to Amend") (docket no. 18).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (docket no. 2). Count I alleges that Haugen, Gibbs and Sampson violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Count II alleges that 1st Class Security, Inc. and Menard, Inc. failed to adequately train and supervise Haugen, Gibbs and Sampson, in violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights; Count III alleges that Defendants conspired to detain and arrest Plaintiffs without probable cause, in violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); Count IV alleges false arrest against Defendants, pursuant to Iowa state law; and Count V[1] alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants, pursuant to Iowa state law.

On July 30, 2013, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss. On September 5, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Resistance to the Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 16). On September 13, 2013, Defendants filed a Reply to the Resistance to the Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 20).

On September 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Amend and attached their proposed Amended Complaint (docket no. 18-2). Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges that Haugen, Gibbs and Sampson interfered with Plaintiffs' right to contract free from racial discrimination, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; Count II alleges that Defendants conspired to detain and arrest Plaintiffs without probable cause, in violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); Count III alleges false arrest against Defendants, pursuant to Iowa state law; and Count IV alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants, pursuant to Iowa state law.[2] On September 13, 2013, Defendants filed a Resistance to the Motion to Amend (docket no. 19).

In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants request the opportunity to present oral argument. The court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Amend are fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal on the basis of "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter... to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); accord B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 569 F.3d 383, 387 (8th Cir. 2009). A claim satisfies the plausibility standard "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 556). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 556).

Although a plaintiff need not provide "detailed" facts in support of his or her allegations, the "short and plain statement" requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (quoting Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) ("Specific facts are not necessary [under Rule 8(a)(2)]."). "A pleading that offers labels and conclusions' or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555). "Where the allegations show on the face of the complaint [that] there is some insuperable bar to relief, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate." Benton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 524 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Parnes v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 122 F.3d 539, 546 (8th Cir. 1997)).

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the facts are as follows:

A. Parties

Plaintiff Cornell A. Hoosman is a resident of the State of Iowa and resides in a county within the Northern District of Iowa. Plaintiff Delisha R. Hoosman is also a resident of the State of Iowa and also resides in a county within the Northern District of Iowa.

Defendant 1st Class Security is a Nebraska corporation doing business in the State of Iowa and is registered with the Iowa Secretary of State. Defendant Menard, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation and is registered with the Iowa Secretary of State. Defendants Gibbs and Haugen were at times relevant to the instant action employed by 1st Class Security and are residents of the State of Iowa. Defendant Sampson ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.