THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
XLAZERIFY,
-against-
STUDSPERSECOND,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CV-832
RESPONSE TO DISMISSAL
Presiding Judge: AlexJCabot
RESPONSE
In the defence’s motion to dismiss, they bring up multiple questions regarding two
prongs:
1) The complaint does not state a claim and;
2) The case does not meet all four prongs of the tort Negligence per se.
In this response, the defence will refute these claims in simple point form order.
STATING A CLAIM
In the first half of the defence’s motion to dismiss, they go over many different parts of
how our complaint may have not met the standards laid out by both the Ridgeway Civil
Procedure and its counterpart in the FRCP Section 8(a)(1)- “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”. They then go on to explain how in Bell Atl
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US. 554, 555 it is stated that (“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.”). The defence then says to
pass this bar that has been set out, the plaintiff must “State a claim that is plausible on its face”
and that this plausibility comes when “The plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”.
The defence believes it has met this standard in its complaint because it is in fact not
“barebones” and provides more than just labels and conclusions, but the actual backstory as to
how the action came about. It describes in great detail the events leading up to the demotion,
including the reasoning as to why the plaintiff could not reasonably be expected to perform their
duties due to being hospitalized.
The statement of facts in the complaint not only pleads factual content that anyone could
see but draws a beyond reasonable inference as to how the defendant harmed the plaintiff by
removing him from his position, despite being an otherwise excellent employee, but is also
backed by evidence as disclosed by the plaintiff’s discovery.
The plaintiff refutes the claims that the complaint was “barebones” nor lacking in any
kind of plausibility or grounds for relief, and asserts that the complaint meets all of the standards
prescribed by this court and by judicial interpretation as seen in Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550
US. 554, 555.
pg. intentionally left blank
THE CASE PRESENTED MEETS ALL PRONGS OF 5. R STAT 306
The Defence lays out all four prongs of 5. R Stat 306 as the following:
1) The defendant must be prescribed a duty of care by Statute or Administrative Policy
2) The defendant must breach that duty
3) The breach of duty must cause some type of injury
4) The policy breached must have been instituted with the purpose of preventing the injury
alleged.
The plaintiff will explain how this case meets all of these prongs in the same order.
1) In the StudsPerSecond Handbook, page 2 under “Leadership and Careers” it charges any
person holding the rank of General Manager with the responsibility of “Promoting an
enjoyable workplace experience” and “Ensuring StudsPerSecond is not too restrictive”
2) The defendant acted without care when removing the plaintiff from their position while
on leave, breaching both their duty of care as prescribed on page 2 of the handbook, but
also company policy regarding inactivity prescribed on page 3, section 115
3) The defendant’s ignorance to their duty of care and company policy is directly
responsible for the plaintiff’s unwarranted demotion.
4) On page 6 of the StudsPerSecond handbook, under “Activity Requirement” it clearly
states in the first line the purpose of the requirement is to “ensure that employees are not
burdened by the policy while still being able to enjoy the benefits of their employment
here.”, One of these benefits, of course, being their access to take more than 5 days leave
with notice, which was provided.
The plaintiff urges the court to not dismiss this case, as it has met all the prerequisites
required of it, despite the defence’s best attempts to try and prove otherwise.
DATED: January 3rd, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
Dannlabs, Esq.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
/s/ Dannlabs
——――――――――――――
xLazerify
Plaintiff
/s/ xLazerify
