IN THE RIDGEWAY STATE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HIGHZPEEDTRAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAUNATHAN_N,
Defendant,
CASE NO. RSC-CV-3374
PLEADING: HON. NOTSFEELINGS
MOTION TO DISMISS
MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1) and Rule 12(b)(5) of the Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiff highzpeedtrain, proceeding with counsel, respectfully ask this Court to dismiss the
Defendant’s Counterclaim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. The reasons and grounds in support of Defendant’s Motion is
set forth in a memorandum attached hereto.
August 17th, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sawyeriez
Sawyeriez, Esq.
Counsel of Record
Ridgeway Bar No. 25105
Discord:
@ski019
Attorney for Plaintiff
-1-
IN THE RIDGEWAY STATE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HIGHZPEEDTRAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAUNATHAN_N,
Defendant,
CASE NO. RSC-CV-3374
PLEADING: HON. NOTSFEELINGS
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Plaintiff highzpeedtrain, by and through counsel, submits this memorandum of points
and authorities in support of the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff denies all allegations set forth
within the response and assert an affirmative defense of Failure to State a claim.
ARGUMENT
I. DEFENDANT HAS NOT PLEADED FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT SUGGEST AN
ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF
To determine if the plaintiff has pleaded facts that entitle him to relief, this Court must
follow a two-pronged approach. First, this Court must “identify[] the allegations in the complaint
that are not entitled to the assumption of truth” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009). That is,
the court must separate pleadings of fact from pleadings of conclusion. Second, this Court must
evaluate the factual assertions to determine whether “they plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief” Id. at 679. When a complaint falls short of facial plausibility, it must be dismissed—this
rule existed before the post- Twombly and Iqbal era. See
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46
(1957) (“A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under
-2-
any set of [the] facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.”) (emphasis added).
The United States Supreme Court has warned that a "mere ‘formulaic recitation of elements of a
cause of action will not do.’” Supported by Lazerify v. StudsPerSeconds, Lazerify filed a civil
complaint against StudsPerSecond, alleging negligence per se. StudsPerSecond countered with a
motion to dismiss, arguing that xLazerify failed to state a claim. On January 7, 2023, the lower
court denied the motion to dismiss findi... rging the lower court to reconsider its ruling and
thereby grant their motion to dismiss.
II. DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM LACKS STANDING
Article III standing is “an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy
requirement,” and without it a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). To satisfy Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1)
an “injury in fact” that is (2) “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant,” and
(3) “likely...redress[able] by a favorable decision.” Id. at 560-561.
III. DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
BATTERY
1 R. Stat. § 3102 (Battery) requires two elements to successfully meet this requirement. 1)
unconsented harmful; or 2) offensive contact against another person. Defendant meets
requirement 2 of offensive contact against another person, but fails to meet requirement 1. Which
to establish unconsented harm. The Defendant clearly copy and pasted the Plaintiff’s facts within
their Civil Complaint. Reversing the facts of what the Plaintiff is bringing this civil suit against the
Defendant for. Alongside copy and pasting the Plaintiff’s facts, the Defendant failed to meet the
elements to be entitled to relief. This cause of action must be dismissed.
-3-
CONCLUSION
Based on the defendant’s failure to plead factual allegations supporting an entitlement to
relief, this counterclaim ought to be dismissed
August 17th, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sawyeriez
Sawyeriez, Esq.
Counsel of Record
Ridgeway Bar No. 25105
Discord:
@ski019
Attorney for Plaintiff
-4-
IN THE RIDGEWAY STATE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HIGHZPEEDTRAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAUNATHAN_N,
Defendant,
CASE NO. RSC-CV-3374
PLEADING: HON. NOTSFEELINGS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sawyeriez, do hereby certify that a copy of this document and the contents thereof has,
on June 24th, 2024, been served upon the opposing parties of the above-entitled matter.
August 17th, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sawyeriez
Sawyeriez, Esq.
Counsel of Record
Ridgeway Bar No. 25105
Discord:
@ski019
Attorney for Plaintiff
-5-
