See Donohue, 715 F.Supp.2d at 323. To summarize, although Defendants may prove otherwise upon completion of discovery and a motion for summary judgment, at this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs have met their burden and have alleged a plausible cause of action for a violation of the Contracts Clause. However, the parties are cautioned to appreciate the “distinction” between the Rule 12(b)(6) standard and the summary judgment standard. The burden on the non-movant is significantly different on a motion for summary judgment. “Even if the same relevant documents were considered at each stage, general facts ... receive consideration at summary judgment, but not in the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.” Werbowsky v. Am. Waste Serv., Inc., No. 97-4319, 1998 WL 939882, *5 (6th Cir. Dec. 22, 1998) (<HOLDING>). If presented with a motion for summary
holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding a ruling on a motion for summary judgment adjudicating the rights of a party is a final judgment subject to appeal holding that the rule 12b6 ruling was not a final judgment and did not bind the district court at summary judgment