United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 29)
C. NIVISON U.S. Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Susanne
Levasseur’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. (ECF
No. 29.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the
review of the motion and the amended complaint, I recommend
the Court grant Defendant’s motion.
original complaint, Plaintiff sets forth a list of claims
related to her tenancy at property owned by Defendant.
(Complaint at 2, ECF No. 1.) Within the list of claims,
Plaintiff asserted that she was injured as the result of
Defendant’s failure to address an unsafe condition on
the property, and that Defendant failed to accommodate an
unspecified disability and discriminated against Plaintiff
regarding the properties Defendant made available to
February 1, 2016, as permitted by the Court, Plaintiff
amended her complaint. (Amended Complaint, ECF No. 23.) In
her amended pleading, Plaintiff alleges Defendant promised
her that she could purchase the property located at 131 Betts
Road, Orrington, Maine. Plaintiff attached to the amended
complaint a purchase and sale agreement that Plaintiff alone
signed, an apartment lease agreement dated November 1, 2014,
and a 30-day notice to quit dated June 29, 2015.
Plaintiff’s allegations and the attachments to the
amended complaint suggest that Plaintiff moved into the
property with her family and that Defendant, acting on behalf
of the landlord, served Plaintiff with a notice to quit
because Plaintiff was sharing the premises with individuals
who were not part of Plaintiff’s family.
alleges violation of the Sixth Amendment, breach of quiet
enjoyment, and wrongful lease termination.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a party may seek
dismissal of an action based on “lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.” “‘Federal courts are courts
of limited jurisdiction, ’ possessing ‘only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute.’”
Gunn v. Minton, __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064
(2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). “It is to be
presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction,
and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the
party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511
U.S. at 377 (citation omitted). Unless Plaintiff alleges an
actionable claim under federal law, or a claim between
citizens of different states that exceeds $75, 000, this
Court would lack jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s
action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes
a party to seek dismissal of “a claim for relief in any
pleading” if that party believes that the pleading
fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” In its assessment of the motion, a court must
“assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the
plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences
therefrom.” Blanco v. Bath Iron Works Corp.,
802 F.Supp.2d 215, 221 (D. Me. 2011) (quoting Genzyme
Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 622 F.3d 62, 68 (1st Cir.
2010)). To overcome a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, a plaintiff must establish that her allegations
raise a plausible basis for a factfinder to conclude that the
defendant is legally responsible for the claims at issue.
a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is subject to
“less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers, ” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972), the complaint may not consist entirely of
“conclusory allegations that merely parrot the relevant
legal standard, ” Young v. Wells Fargo, N.A.,
717 F.3d 224, 231 (1st Cir. 2013). See also Ferranti v.
Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980) (explaining
that the liberal standard applied to the pleadings of pro se
plaintiffs “is not to say that pro se plaintiffs are
not required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a
claim”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
“demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Id. Consequently, in assessing
whether a plaintiff has asserted a cause of action, a court
must “isolate and ignore statements in the complaint
that simply offer legal labels and conclusions or merely
rehash cause-of-action elements.” Schatz v.
Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st
her motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that the Court lacks
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, and that
Plaintiff has not asserted facts that would support a claim
against her for action she took on behalf of the landlord.
mentioned above, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss. Failure to oppose a motion to dismiss is
deemed a waiver of objection. D. Me. Loc. R. 7(b).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, therefore, is arguably
susceptible to dismissal based on Plaintiff’s lack of
opposition to the motion. Regardless of whether Plaintiff
filed an opposition to the motion, because the Court lacks
jurisdiction over the claims as ...