United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
TEXAS ROADHOUSE, INC., and TEXAS ROADHOUSE DELAWARE, LLC, Plaintiffs,
TEXAS CORRAL RESTAURANTS, INC., TEXCOR, INC., TEXAS CORRAL RESTAURANT II, INC., T.C. OF MICHIGAN CITY, INC., T.C. OF KALAMAZOO, INC., CHICAGO ROADHOUSE CONCEPTS, LLC, T.C. OF OAK LAWN, INC., T.C. OF HARWOOD HEIGHTS, INC., TEXAS CORRAL INCORPORATED., MARTINSVILLE CORRAL, INC., and PAUL SWITZER, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
S. VAN BOKKELEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Texas Roadhouse Plaintiffs claim the Texas Corral Defendants
infringe on Plaintiffs' trade dress and trademarks, and
engage in unfair competition.
Paul Switzer moves under Rule 12(b)(6) for dismissal of the
federal trade dress infringement claim (Count I) and the
federal trademark infringement claim (Count II) for failure
to state a claim under the Lanham Act for personal liability.
Mr. Switzer also moves for dismissal of the state claims
against him for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction following
dismissal of the federal claims. Finally, Mr. Switzer moves
for dismissal of Counts III, IV, and IX on the basis of
various statutes of limitations.
Standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss
purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim is to test the sufficiency of the
pleadings, not to decide the merits of the case. See
Gibson v. Chi., 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990).
Rule 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must contain "a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief." However, "recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice" Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
Supreme Court stated, "the tenet that a court must
accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions."
Id. Rather, "a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570). A complaint is facially plausible if a court can
reasonably infer from factual content in the pleading that
the defendant is liable for the alleged wrongdoing.
Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Seventh Circuit synthesized the standard into three
requirements. See Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581
(7th Cir. 2009). "First, a plaintiff must provide notice
to defendants of her claims. Second, courts must accept a
plaintiffs factual allegations as true, but some factual
allegations will be so sketchy or implausible that they fail
to provide sufficient notice to defendants of the plaintiffs
claim. Third, in considering the plaintiffs factual
allegations, courts should not accept as adequate abstract
recitations of the elements of a cause of action or
conclusory legal statements." Id.
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint
Texas Roadhouse, Inc., and Texas Roadhouse Delaware, LLC
(collectively "Texas Roadhouse Plaintiffs") attempt
to bring the same nine counts against each of 11 named
Defendants (collectively "Texas Corral
Defendants"). One of these Defendants is an individual:
second amended complaint, the Texas Roadhouse Plaintiffs make
the following claims.
Mr. Switzee entities owned or controlled by him, is the
• all Texas Corral r owns:
• Texas Corral Restaurant II, Inc.; and
• T.C. of Kalamazoo, Inc. He is the president of:
• Texas Corral Restaurants, Inc.;
• Texcor, Inc. ("president-CEO");
• T.C. of Michigan City, Inc.;
• Chicago Roadhouse Concepts, ...