Epstein Secrets

a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent”. See Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F.Supp. 2d 1327, 1358-59 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (allegati

ounts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not satisfy “the standard of pleading” established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twombly well beyond its intended scope. Twombly was an antitrust consp

tion of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1311, 1312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Sullivan v. Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 454 So.2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review denied, 461 So.2

ief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumpt

Twombley 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.3 See Paul . Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("[a] battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to caus

06/2008 Page 9 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 9 Conclusion As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twombly, supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Pl