United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
A. Baker United States Magistrate Judge
Timothy Townsend brought a suit against Defendants relating
to personal injury from a piece of equipment he used in the
course of his employment. (Doc. 20). Defendant Win Holt
Equipment Corp. (“Win Holt”) moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 22).
Defendant National Cart, LLC d/b/a National Cart Company
(“National Cart”) filed a motion (Doc. 24) to
dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim,
or in the alternative, for a more definite statement. The
motions are fully briefed and taken under submission.
matter jurisdiction is exercised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or
venue, and there are adequate allegations to support both.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. On December 20, 2017,
this matter was referred to the undersigned by U.S. District
Judge Myron H. Thompson for disposition or recommendation on
all pretrial matters. See also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b); Rule 72, Fed. R. Civ. P.; United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); Jeffrey S. v. State
Board of Education of State of Georgia, 896 F.2d 507
(11th Cir. 1990).
BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 
March 18, 2015, Plaintiff was working as a merchandise
stocker at a Wal-Mart in Prattville, Alabama. (Doc. 20 at
¶ 13). In the course of Plaintiff's duties, he was
using a piece of equipment called a “rocket cart”
that “was designed, engineered, manufactured, sold,
distributed, installed, leased, inspected, maintained and/or
repaired by” the Defendants. (Doc. 20 at ¶ 15).
“Plaintiff was attempting to stock coffee on a rocket
cart when the shelf of the cart unlatched and forcefully hit
him on his head.” (Doc. 20 at ¶ 14). Plaintiff
alleges that as a result of the rocket cart shelf coming
unlatched, he “suffered severe injuries to his neck and
head resulting in the plaintiff requiring medical treatment,
and has been left with permanent injuries…”
(Doc. 20 at ¶ 16). Based on these allegations,
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges four state law
claims of liability pursuant to the Alabama Extended
Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, negligence,
wantonness, and reckless/willful actions. (Doc. 20 at
STANDARD OF REVIEW
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the
Complaint against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8:
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the
court must take “the factual allegations in the
complaint as true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.” Pielage v.
McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008).
However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true
all of the allegations contained in a complaint is
inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). “[A]
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.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief [is] ... a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 663
(alteration in original) (citation omitted). “[F]acial
plausibility” exists “when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). The standard also “calls for enough facts
to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence” of the claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556. While the complaint need not set out “detailed
factual allegations, ” it must provide sufficient
factual amplification “to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Id. at 555.
when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not
raise a claim of entitlement to relief, ‘this basic
deficiency should ... be exposed at the point of minimum
expenditure of time and money by the parties and the
court.'” Twombly, 550 U.S. 558 (quoting 5
Wight & Miller § 1216, at 233-34 (quoting in turn
Daves v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., 114 F.Supp. 643, 645
(D. Haw. 1953)) (alteration original). “[O]nly a
complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a
motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
“In keeping with these principles a court considering a
motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying
pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions,
are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they
must be supported by factual allegations. When there are
well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise
to an entitlement to relief.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.