Defendant PHS filed a motion to dismiss this action forimproper venue, to which ASC and Deutsche Bank added a motion todismiss for failure to state a claim that PHS later joined. The
Kimmels responded to these motions and we have entertainedsupplemental briefing so that the motions are now ripe fordisposition. For the reasons described below, we will deny PHS’smotion to dismiss for improper venue and grant in part ASC andDeutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.We will afford the Kimmels a limited opportunity to amend theircomplaint to remedy some of the deficiencies we identify here.
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to statea claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), we must “‘accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true and give the pleaderthe benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be fairly drawntherefrom.’” Ordonez v. Yost, 289 Fed. Appx. 553, 554 (3d Cir.2008) (quoting Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir.1993)). We may “‘consider only allegations in the complaint,See PHS's Supplemental Brief (docket no. 10) at 2,
note 1.We rehearse the standard applicable to a motion to
dismiss for improper venue in Section II.A below.2