STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

) Case No. 2019-CP-10-03671
LOR REC SC LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) ORDER DENYING ANCHOR
1871 Ashley River Road, LLC; University ) RESTORATION CONTRACTORS,
Place Developers, LLC; Ashley River ) LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Constructors; Trident Construction, LLC; )
Caerus Construction, LLC; Timothy K. )
Kennedy; R. Milton Ashley River )
Constructors , III; Cohen’s Drywall )
Company, Inc.; George Doughty d/b/a )
Doughty Painting; GREP Southeast, LLC )
d/b/a Greystar, Lee & Associates Charleston )
PM, LLC; McMillan Pazdan Smith, LLC, as )
successor to Insite Strategy + Architecture; )
Thomas Hund; AIA; James Kourafas; Cingo, )
Inc.; Celek& Celek Construction, Inc.; )
Allgood Pest Control, Pleasant Places, Inc., )
Ellington Cross, LLC; Dollar Concrete )
Construction Company; Carolina Floor )
Systems, Inc.; DC Masonry, LLC; First )
Exteriors, LLC; Anchor Restoration )
Contractors, LLC; Summit Steel Fabricators, )
Inc.; Ashley Framing Contractors, LLC; )
Baugh Construction, Inc.; Dusty Greer )
Roofing, Inc.; 31-WInsulation Co., Inc.; )
Glasscorp, LLC; Flooring Services, Inc. )
n/k/a Black Bear Enterprises, Inc.; Founders )
Kitchen &Bath, Inc.; National Stoneworks, )
LLC;US Sprinkler, Inc.; Intersouth Plumbing )
Services, Inc.; American Residential )
Services, LLC; B&E Electrical, Inc. )
)
Defendants. )

THIS MATTER HAVING COME BEFORE THE COURT by way of a virtual hearing in

Charleston County on October 2, 2023, upon Defendant Anchor Restoration Contractors, LLC’s

(“Anchor Restoration”) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 3(a)(2) and 12(b)(6), 12(b)(4),
12(b)(5), and 12(b)(2). After hearing the arguments of counsel, as well as reviewing the

memoranda submitted by the parties, this Court DENIES Anchor Restoration’s Motion to

Dismiss.

Plaintiff is the owner of an apartment complex known as “The Ashley” or the “Project”

located at 1871 Ashley River Road, Charleston, SC 29407. Plaintiff initiated this action on July

10, 2019, asserting claims against 1871 Ashley River Road, LLC, University Place Developers,

LLC, Ashley River Constructors, Trident Construction, LLC, Caerus Construction, LLC,

Timothy K. Kennedy, R. Milton Thomas, III, Cohen’s Drywall Company, Inc., George Doughty

d/b/a Doughty Painting, and GREP Southwest, LLC d/b/a Greystar.

When considering a motion to dismiss, based on Rule 12(b), SCRCP, the court should

base its ruling solely upon allegations set forth on the face of the complaint. Doe v. Greenville

County School Dist., 375 S.C. 63, 651 S.E.2d 305 (2007). The question for the court is whether,

in light most favorable to the non-moving party and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the

allegations set forth on the face of the complaint state any valid claim for relief. Sloan Const.

Co., Inc. v. Southco Grassing, Inc., 377 S.C. 108, 659 S.E.2d 158 (2008). The trial court must

presume all well-pled facts to be true so that substantial justice is done between the parties.

Overcash v. S.C. Elect. & Gas Co., 614 S.E.2d 619 (SC 2005).

Having reviewed the submissions of all parties and heard oral argument, the Court

disagrees with Anchor Restoration’s contentions. First, as to Rule 3(a)(2), SCRCP. I find that

Anchor has failed to meet its burden for a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 3(a)(2) and 12(b)

(6), 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(2).

Additionally, Anchor did not move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Rather,

Anchor Restoration moved for relief under Rule 12 (b) (2), (4), and (5). Those motions are

2
denied as Plaintiff has sufficiently pled its case and Anchor Restoration was properly served on

September 22, 2023.

Finally, as to the sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s Complaint under Rule 12 (b) (6), SCRCP,

the allegations, as set forth in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, entitle the Plaintiff relief

under all causes of action therein, especially when said allegations are viewed in a light most

favorable to Plaintiff. See Spence v. Spence, 386 S.C. 106, 116 628 S.E.2d 869, 874 (2006) (“a

motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) cannot be granted if facts alleged and inferences

reasonably deducible therefrom entitle the plaintiff relief under any theory.”). Consequently,

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, including all allegations contained therein, is proper as

pled pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP.

THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Anchor

Restoration’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.

The Honorable Roger M. Young

Presiding Judge

October ___, 2023

Charleston, South Carolina