3forth in the complaint or grievance are assumed to be true, hereby
thecomplaint or grievance.The Plaintiffs then filed this lawsuit.
The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can begranted. In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court “must accept all well pled facts as trueand draw all permissible inferences in favor of the plaintiff.”
Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n
, 683 F.3d 328, 334 (7
Cir. 2012). For a claim to survive a motion to dismiss forfailure to state a claim, it must provide the defendant with “fair notice of what the . . . claim isand the grounds upon which it rests.”
Brooks v. Ross
, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7
Cir. 2009) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus
, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)) (omission in original). A complaint must “containsufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
, 683 F.3d at 334 (citations omitted). A complaint’s factual allegations are plausible if they “raise the right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
, 550U.S. 544, 556 (2007). With that standard in mind, the Court will address the arguments made bythe Defendants.
A. Notice Requirement
The Defendants first argue that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the NVRA’s noticerequirement, which provides, in relevant part:(1) A person who is aggrieved by a violation of this subchapter may providewritten notice of the violation to the chief election official of the State involved.(2) If the violation is not corrected within 90 days after receipt of a notice underparagraph (1) . . . the aggrieved person may bring a civil action in an appropriatedistrict court for declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to the violation.
Case 1:12-cv-00800-WTL-TAB Document 37 Filed 12/10/12 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 166