The issue at hand is if the defendant Brad has grounds to have the case dismissed based on the plaintiffs complaint.
In North Carolina, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6) states “Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”. This law grants a defendant a reason to have a case dismissed. When dismissing a case based on this law, must include one or more of the following: when on its face the complaint reveals no law supports plaintiffs claim; when on its face the complaint reveals the absence of sufficient to make a good claim; and when some facts disclosed in the complaint necessarily defeats plaintiffs claim.
In the case of Johnson v. Bollinger, 86 N.C. App. 1 (1987) the first ruling that dismissed plaintiffs claim of assault were reversed. The court had decided that the assault claim was “improperly dismissed”. They also stated that “a plaintiff’s complaint should not be dismissed unless it affirmatively appears plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be presented in support of the claim.”
Dixon v. Stuart, 85 N.C. App. 388 (1987), plaintiff was filing for “intentional infliction of emotional distress”, case was first dismissed under Rule 12 (b)(6). Later, case was reversed. Court claimed that thought the plaintiff didn’t specify the acts based around the “ridicule and harassment”, that specifications were not required. They found the complaint to be sufficient enough to describe what the claim was, and what actions led up to the claim.
In current case given, I believe the defendant’s motion for dismissal will be denied. The plaintiffs claim is vague of specific actions. Like in Dixon, the claim is sufficient enough to know what the claim was. Therefore specifications were not required. This complaint would not be dismissed when basing it upon Fed. R. 12 (b)(6).
2. Missing from the complaint is that there isn’t a demand for a trial jury, doesn’t include the jurisdiction or reason why the court has...