Turner v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss
District Court, N.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. No. 8 ]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge:
The Defendant, Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss (“Lerner”), moves the Court to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [Doc. 8.] The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. [Doc. H.] The Defendant replied. [Doc. 19.1
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
I. Background
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Tamara Turner, Phillip Turner, Mary Sweeney, James Unger, and Kelly Unger file…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Lawrence v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Heintz v. JenkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Clark v. Lender Processing Services, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2013
- Stewart v. Bureaus Investment Group 1, LLCDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2014
- Eilert v. TurnerDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2015
- Williams v. Partners for Payment Relief, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2020