The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
permit a responding party to seek dismissal of a claim, or any part thereof,
for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the Court to decide whether the facts
alleged in the complaint entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. The
court need not accept as true conclusory allegations of law made in the
complaint, nor must it accept unreasonable inferences or unwarranted deductions
of fact. Hon. William W. Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil
Procedure Before Trial § 9:221 (2000) (citing In re Delorean Motor Co., 991
F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir. 1993)). In addition, the court need not accept as
true conclusory allegations or legal characterizations of counsel. See,
W Mining Council v. Watt, 643
F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
The United States Supreme Court
heightened the federal pleading standards governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions. In Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007), the Supreme Court held that notice pleading requires more than
a mere legal conclusion to defeat a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court
specifically stated that a plaintiff is obligated "to provide the
'grounds' of his entitle[ment] to relief" beyond mere "labels and
conclusions." Id. at
555. The Supreme Court also stated that "a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. As a
result, a plaintiff must provide "[f]actual allegations . . . enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the assumption that
all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. More recently, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court further reaffirmed Twombly and clarified that
its holding applies in all civil actions in the United States district courts. Id. at 1951.
