Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

C.A. Jones, Inc. v. Mayson Capital Partners, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division

January 15, 2015

C.A. JONES, INC. ET AL., Plaintiffs,


THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon Defendants' motion for dismiss. (Docket #8, 12). Plaintiffs, without leave of Court, filed an amended complaint. (Docket #11). Defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint. (Docket #12). Plaintiffs have responded. (Docket #14). Defendants have replied. (Docket #15). These matters now are ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docket #8, 12) are DENIED.


This action arises out of a loan to Charles A. Jones, C.A. Jones, Inc., and Global Book Resellers (collectively "Jones"). Jones was loaned $1.1 million dollars by Mayson Capital Partners, LLC, Missouri Book Company, LLC, PAJCO, Inc., and Jeffrey Maurer (collectively, "Mayson").

In May, 2014, Mayson allegedly approached Jones "about participating in a potential business opportunity." (Docket #1, Ex. 1). Jones "permitted" Mayson to loan Jones $1.1 million. The parties apparently did not put the terms of this loan into writing. Three months later the parties reached a disagreement as to what amount Mayson was entitled to be repaid and when repayment was due. (Docket #1, Ex. 1).

Jones filed this lawsuit claiming Mayson has attempted to extort Jones by demanding "many times the amount" that Mayson loaned, "threatening to have Jones prosecuted criminally, " and "by interfering in other litigation in which Jones is involved." (Docket #1, Ex. 1). Jones also seeks a declaration of that the transaction is unenforceable and that Jones has no obligation to Mayson. (Docket #1, Ex. 1).

Mayson now moves to dismiss Jones's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Docket #8, 12).


The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that pleadings, including complaints, contain a "short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A defendant may move to dismiss a claim or case because the complaint fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must presume all of the factual allegations in the complaint are true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Great Lakes Steel v. Deggendorf, 716 F.2d 1101, 1105 (6th Cir. 1983)). "The court need not, however, accept unwarranted factual inferences." Id. (citing Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987)).

Even though a "complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). Instead, the plaintiff's "[f]actual allegations must be 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. (citations omitted). A complaint should contain enough facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. A claim becomes plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). If, from the well-pleaded facts, the court cannot "infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but has not show[n]' - that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. at 1950 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). "Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Id.


As an initial matter, the Court will address Jones' amended complaint, which Jones filed without seeking leave from the Court. The Court then turns to whether Jones has pled sufficient facts for his request for a declaratory judgment and his extortion claim.

I. Jones Amended Complaint.

Generally, a party may amend his complaint "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). "The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Id. The trial court has the discretion to permit or deny an amendment. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.