Walker v. City of Charlotte, North Carolina

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:23-cv-83-MOC
STEPHANIE WALKER, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
)
CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NORTH )
CAROLINA, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss, filed by Defendant City
of Charlotte, (Doc. No. 15), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I. BACKGROUND
The following allegations by Plaintiff are taken as true and construed in favor of Plaintiff
on the pending motion to dismiss:
Plaintiff Stephanie Walker filed this action on February 13, 2023. (Doc. No. 1). On May
2, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 14). Plaintiff brings claims under
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 40A-51 for Inverse Condemnation and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
violations of her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as for undue influence,
negligence, and private nuisance.1 (Id. ¶¶ 102–170). Plaintiff also seeks compensatory relief,
punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and a judgment that sets aside any waiver of rights
1 The parties are well versed in the underlying facts; thus, the Court does not repeat them here.
Case 3:23-cv-00083-MOC-DCK Document 20 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 3

2
signed by Plaintiff at a time when she was represented by counsel. (Id. p. 21 ¶¶ 1–9).
Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss on July 17, 2023. (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff
filed a Response on July 27, 2027, and Defendant filed a Reply on August 19, 2023. (Doc. Nos.
16, 19). The court held a hearing on the motion on October 23, 2023. This matter is ripe for
disposition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), the Court must
accept as true all of the factual allegations in the Complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56
(2007). However, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” with the complaint having “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “[T]he tenet that a court must
accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions,”
and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements” are insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555). A complaint may survive a motion to dismiss only if it “states a plausible claim for
relief” that “permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct” based
upon “its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679 (citations omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s signing of a Release and acceptance and use of the
$45,000 in settlement funds constitute a waiver of the claims she seeks to assert in this lawsuit.
In response, Plaintiff argues that the issue of undue influence is usually reserved for the jury, and
the Court should therefore deny the motion to dismiss. Here, as the Court stated in open court
Case 3:23-cv-00083-MOC-DCK Document 20 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 3

3
during the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the Court will allow this matter to go to discovery
on the issue of undue influence. That is, the parties may conduct discovery on the circumstances
surrounding the settlement agreement in this matter.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 15),
is DENIED.
Signed: December 4, 2023
Case 3:23-cv-00083-MOC-DCK Document 20 Filed 12/04/23 Page 3 of 3