# Warren v. Shire Pharmaceuticals

> District Court, N.D. Illinois · December 4, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10139789

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** December 4, 2018
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10139789

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

SANDRA WARREN )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 18-cv-7622
)
v. ) Judge Jorge L. Alonso
)
SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is defendant Shire Pharmaceuticals, LLC’s (“Shire”) motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for a more definite
statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss [8]. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file
an amended complaint by January 4, 2019, if she can state a claim in compliance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
BACKGROUND

On October 11, 2018, pro se plaintiff Sandra Warren filed suit in the Circuit Court of
Lake County, Illinois, alleging a claim of workplace discrimination. Plaintiff seeks damages
from Shire in the amount of $1,000,000. On November 16, 2018, Shire removed the action to
this Court and later filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or, alternatively, for a more definite statement.
STANDARD

The purpose of a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the complaint,
not decide the merits of the case. Derfus v. City of Chi., 42 F. Supp. 3d 888, 893 (7th Cir. 2014).
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a pleading that purports to state a
claim for relief must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim
satisfies this standard when its factual allegations “raise a right to relief above the speculative

level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56; see also Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th
Cir. 2010) (“[P]laintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a
story that holds together.”). For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts “as true all of
the well-pleaded facts in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff.” Platt v. Brown, 872 F.3d 848, 851 (7th Cir. 2017). “A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed, … and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Beal v. Beller, 847 F.3d 897, 902
(7th Cir. 2017).
DISCUSSION

Shire moves to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff’s one-sentence complaint is insufficient for
Shire to reasonably defend itself. The Court agrees. Plaintiff has filed a one-sentence Complaint
against Shire, stating that she is “seeking damages from Shire Pharmaceuticals in the amount of
$1,000,000 for workplace discrimination.” (Dkt. 1, pg. 9.) Nowhere in her Complaint does
plaintiff state when or how she was allegedly subject to workplace discrimination. Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to provide a short and plain statement of the
claim showing she is entitled to relief and a demand for the relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
In other words, Rule 8 requires plaintiff to explain the wrong Shire has allegedly done to her, and
what plaintiff wants the Court to do about it, as briefly as possible but also in enough detail to
“present a story that holds together.” Swanson, 614 F.3d at 404. The Court is mindful that it
must give plaintiff leeway as a pro se litigant, but plaintiff must state enough facts to provide
Shire with fair notice of a plausible claim to relief. To do so, plaintiff must “give enough details
about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together.” Jd.
Because plaintiffs allegations do not meet the requirements of Rule 8, the Court grants
Shire’s motion to dismiss, and this case is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint containing a short and plain description of the grounds for this lawsuit,
including specific factual details sufficient to meet the standard described above, by January 4,
2019.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendant Shire’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is
granted. This case is dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED. ENTERED: December 4, 2018

HON. JORGE ALONSO.
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10139789. Public record. Not legal advice.