The opinion of the court was delivered by: David E. Peebles U.S. Magistrate Judge
Currently pending before the court is a motion by the remaining defendants in the action seeking dismissal of the claims set forth in plaintiff's amended complaint on a variety of bases. Dkt. No. 26. Oral argument was conducted in connection with defendants' motion, which plaintiff has opposed, see Dkt. No. 28, on December 21, 2007. At the close of argument I rendered a bench decision finding that plaintiff's pendent state law intentional tort claims of false imprisonment, battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and further that plaintiff's claims against defendant Dawn Frair are subject to dismissal based on the lack of any allegations concerning her involvement in the conduct forming the basis for plaintiff's claims, but that defendants' motion should otherwise be denied in light of the requisite generous standard for determining a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure including, inter alia, as prescribed under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) and Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007).
Based upon the foregoing, and incorporating herein by reference the court's bench decision, it is hereby
1) Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, Dkt. No. 26, is GRANTED, in part, and plaintiff's fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action as against all defendants, and all of plaintiff's claims against defendant Dawn Frair, are hereby DISMISSED.
2) With the exception of the foregoing, defendants' motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 26, is hereby DENIED.
3) The clerk is directed to promptly forward copies of this order to the parties pursuant to the court's local rules.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...