SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
XLAZERIFY,
Plaintiff,
v.
STUDSPERSECOND,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CV-832
MOTION TO DISMISS
MOTION TO DISMISS
Comes now the Defendant, StudsPerSecond, as a named defendant and corporation
within the State of Ridgeway, submitting this motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted—
ARGUMENT
The Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure provide that each pleading that is made with
relation to a civil claim must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” 8(a)(1). This rule is analogous to Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, thus it is wise to interpret this clause in the same way federal courts have
interpreted Rule 8(a)(2). In interpreting this clause, the Supreme Court has held that the pleading
standard does not necessarily require extremely detailed factual allegations; but a pleading must
contain more than a barebones accusation that the Defendant unlawfully harmed me. Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (“plaintiff's obligation to provide the “grounds” of his
“entitle[ment] to relief” requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.”). To pass this bar, the Plaintiff must “state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id., at 570. Facial plausibility can only come when,
accepting all the facts as true, “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id., at 556. The
Plaintiff has failed to pass this irreducible bar.
The tort invoked by the Plaintiff is that of negligence per se; the elements here are
simple: first, the Defendant must be prescribed a duty of care by a statute or administrative
policy; second, the Defendant must have breached that duty; third, this breach must have caused
some form of injury; fourth, the statute or policy was instituted with the specific purpose to
prevent the injury alleged. See 1 R. Stat. § 3106. The pleading submitted by the Plaintiff fails to
allege, with a degree of plausibility, that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, that
this duty of care was breached, and that injury has occurred as a result of this breach. Accepting
all the facts as true, as stated in the civil complaint, is that the Defendant demoted the Plaintiff,
and that this demotion was done beyond the bounds of listed company policy. This would
seemingly give rise to a claim when quickly analyzed, but this is a specious notion; for the
Plaintiff has not, and could not, plead to a degree of plausibility that the statute was intended
specifically to prevent the alleged injury (which too is specious).
CONCLUSION
Therefore, as the Plaintiff has failed to plead the facts to a degree of plausibility, that is
that the court can make a reasonable inference that the Defendant is indeed liable, the court
ought to dismiss this complaint in accordance with Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(5).
Dated: January 3, 2023 Respectfully Submitted.
STICKZA
General Counsel
STUDSPERSECOND
HolyRomanRyan
Assistant General Counsel
STUDSPERSECOND
Counsel for Defendant
