Legal Opinion
Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided May 22, 2018No. Civil No. 4:15cv54PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Arenda L. Wright Allen, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is an Amended Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 135) filed by Defendant Gloucester County School Board ("Defendant" or "the Board"). For reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts accept a complaint's well-pled factual allegations as true, and draw any reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Wag More Dogs, LLC v. Cozart , 680 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir.…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2018
- Parents for Privacy v. Dall. Sch. Dist. No. 2District Court, D. Oregon · 2018
- Carcaño v. CooperDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2018
- (PC) Crowder v. FoxDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019
- Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.