Achari et al v. Signal International, LLC et al, No. 2:2013cv06218 - Document 306 (E.D. La. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 195 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Reference: 13-6218; 13-6219; 13-6200; 13-6221)(bwn)

Download PDF
Achari et al v. Signal International, LLC et al Doc. 306 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 08-1220 SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants SECTION “E” Related Cases: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 12-557 SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants SECTION “E” LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732) SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants SECTION "E" Applies To: Achari v. Signal (13-6218 c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Billy Wilks, J&M Associates, Inc., and J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC (collectively, the "J&M Defendants") in Achari v. Signal 1 Dockets.Justia.com (13-6218, 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221)(the "Achari cases").1 Plaintiffs in the Chakkiyattil case (13-6219) filed an opposition to the J&M Defendants' motion.2 The J&M Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in all of the Achari cases for failure to state a claim, primarily denying the factual allegations pled in Plaintiffs' complaints.3 Under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the plaintiff has not set forth factual allegations in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 554 (2007); Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007). In assessing the Plaintiffs' complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and liberally construe all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Lowry v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997). The Court finds the facts pled in Plaintiffs' complaints are sufficient to support their claims against the J&M Defendants. This Court already denied a similar motion filed by the J&M Defendants seeking to dismiss the Plaintiffs' RICO claim in David v. Signal (081220)(the "David case").4 The Court is not persuaded to reach a contrary decision when the factual allegations in the Achari Plaintiffs' complaints are substantially similar to the Plaintiffs' allegations in the David case. Moreover, for the reasons set forth in the Court's Order and Reasons in the David case on the 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed by Signal and the 12(c) Motion for Partial 1 R. Doc. 195. 2 R. Doc. 215. 3 The J&M Defendants' motion, filed pro se, does not specifically move under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c) to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. However, based on the arguments made in the J&M Defendants' motion, the Court construes the motion as a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. 4 R. Doc. 288. 2 Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Burnett,5 the Achari Plaintiffs' complaints allege sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the J&M Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be and hereby is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of August, 2014. ____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 R. Doc. 1713 in the David case. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.