Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division
January 8, 2015, Decided; January 8, 2015, Filed
Before me are Defendant's, VIP Wireless, Inc., VIP Holdings, LLC, Jack Huston, and Patrick Groskopf's, Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29); Sprint Solutions, Inc., Boost Mobile, LLC, Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., and Jerry Bland's Motion to Strike and Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Doc. 30); and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions to [*2] Dismiss (Doc. 34).
Chaddie Suleiman, along with his corporate affiliates, sues Sprint and VIP Wireless, along with their individual and corporate affiliates, for unfair consumer practices and civil conspiracy. He alleges that Sprint and VIP conspired to force him to sell the pre-paid cellular telephone stores which he owned and operated.
After review, I find that Suleiman's Amended Complaint should be stricken from the record, and that in any event, his complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. Sprint and VIP's motions are therefore granted, and Suleiman's claims are dismissed with prejudice.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To overcome a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations of the complaint. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1984). I must construe all allegations in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics, Inc. v. Beech Street Corp., 208 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing Lowell v. American Cyanamid Co., 177 F.3d 1228, 1229 (11th Cir. 1999)).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2175 *
PC CELLULAR, INC., a Florida Corporation, SOUTHEAST CORPORATE STORES, a Florida company and CHADDIE SULEIMAN, an Individual, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, BOOST MOBILE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, JERRY BLAND, an Individual, VIP WIRELESS INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, VIP HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, JACK HUSTON, an individual, PATRICK GROSKOPF, an individual, and VIRGIN MOBILE USA, L.P., Defendants.
Prior History: PC Cellular, Inc. v. Sprint Solutions, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156713 (N.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2014)
amended complaint, motion to dismiss, deceptive, Mobile, contracts, alleges, unfair, motion to strike, conspiracy, terminate, consumer, dismissal with prejudice, failure to respond, civil conspiracy, appears, demands