United States District Court, D. Colorado
September 10, 2014
KARIN BUGATTI FAUSETT and EDDIE FAUSETT, Plaintiffs,
OSTEOTECH, INC., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
The matter before me is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#17] filed November 22, 2013. The plaintiff filed a response [#22] and the defendant filed a reply [#24]. I deny the motion.
The defendant seeks entry of judgment in its favor under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is evaluated under the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 941 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2002).
When ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), I must determine whether the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). I must accept all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true. McDonald v. Kinder-Morgan, Inc., 287 F.3d 992, 997 (10th Cir. 2002). "However, conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss." I review the complaint to determine whether it "contains enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "Thus, the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims." Id. (emphases in original). Nevertheless, the standard remains a liberal one, and "a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely." Dias v. City and County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1178 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Considering the allegations in the complaint [#7] in light of these apposite standards of review, and being apprised of the legal arguments raised by and authorities cited in the motion, response, and reply, I find that the complaint adequately sets forth facts sufficient to state claims for relief that are plausible on their face. Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings [#17] is denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#17] filed November 22, 2013, is DENIED.