United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendants Irum
Tahir and Malik Tahir Aslam's Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint (Doc. # 9), filed on November 15, 2017. Plaintiff
Sohail Akbar Khan responded on November 29, 2017. (Doc. #
12). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.
resident of Pakistan, alleges that his late wife, Nazia, fell
ill and required a lung transplant to survive. (Doc. # 1 at
¶¶ 4-5, 10-11). In 2015, Khan arranged for his wife
to travel to Tampa, Florida, to be treated and hopefully
receive a transplant at a hospital there. (Id. at
¶¶ 12-13). To pay for Nazia's treatment in
advance, Khan transferred $600, 000 - the cost quoted for the
anticipated transplant and subsequent care - from his
personal bank account to the hospital's bank account.
(Id. at ¶ 16).
on the waiting list for a lung transplant, Nazia stayed with
Defendants, her sister and brother-in-law, who live in Tampa.
(Id. at ¶¶ 8-9, 14-15). Defendants
allegedly committed “fraudulent acts” during this
time, including convincing the ill Nazia to withdraw the
$600, 000 from the hospital's account. (Id. at
¶¶ 19-25). Nazia transferred the money to a new
“joint/payable upon death” account shared with
Defendants, such that Defendants would gain title to the
money upon Nazia's death. (Id.).
subsequently passed away in January of 2017 without having
received a transplant. (Id. at ¶ 26).
Defendants allegedly falsified Nazia's death certificate
to state that she was divorced, even though she was legally
married to Khan at the time of her death. (Id. at
¶ 28). Despite Khan's requests, Defendants have
allegedly refused to return the money and have used it for
their personal benefit. (Id. at ¶¶ 29-31).
filed his Complaint on October 17, 2017, asserting claims for
civil theft, unjust enrichment, conversion, and civil
conspiracy against both Defendants, as well as a claim for
aiding and abetting fraud against Aslam. (Doc. # 1).
Defendants have moved to dismiss (Doc. # 9), and Khan has
responded in opposition (Doc. # 12). The Motion is ripe for
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6), this Court accepts as true all the allegations in
the complaint and construes them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. Jackson v. Bellsouth Telecomms.,
372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004). Further, this Court
favors the plaintiff with all reasonable inferences from the
allegations in the complaint. Stephens v. Dep't of
Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1573
(11th Cir. 1990)(stating “[o]n a motion to dismiss, the
facts stated in [the] complaint and all reasonable inferences
therefrom are taken as true”).
[w]hile 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. Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(internal citations omitted). Courts are not “bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
286 (1986). Furthermore, “[t]he scope of review must be
limited to the four corners of the complaint.” St.
George v. Pinellas Cty., 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir.
motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) may attack jurisdiction facially or
factually. Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920,
924 n.5 (11th Cir. 2003). “‘Facial attacks'
on the complaint ‘require[ ] the court merely to look
and see if [the] plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis
of subject matter jurisdiction, and the allegations in his
complaint are taken as true for the purposes of the
motion.'” Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d
1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)(citation omitted).