Addy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al, No. 2:2009cv02674 - Document 28 (D. Ariz. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss Party; party Dan Sullivan and Virginia Sullivan terminated. Counts One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint are dismissed with prejudice as to Dan and Virginia Sullivan and the remaining Counts are dismissed as to Dan and Virginia Sullivan for failure to state a claim, with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint within 20 days of the date of this Order. The Amended Complaint shall not contain a separate Count for punitive damages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 15 Motion for for Summary Adjudication of Dan and Virginia Sullivan's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 4/7/10.(LSP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Addy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al 1 Doc. 28 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ronald Addy, an individual, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) State Farm Insurance Companies, an) Illinois Corporation; Dan and Virginia) Sullivan, husband and wife, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) No. CV 09-02674-PHX-JAT ORDER 16 17 Pending before the Court are Dan and Virginia Sullivan’s (the “Sullivan Defendants”) 18 Motion to Dismiss all claims asserted against them (Doc. # 12) and the Sullivan Defendants’ 19 Motion for Summary Adjudication of the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 15). Plaintiff Ronald 20 Addy (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response to the Sullivan Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 21 16) and a Response to the Sullivan Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication (Doc. # 22 17).1 The Sullivan Defendants filed a Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 23 18). 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Sullivan Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Adjudication of the Motion to Dismiss on January 25, 2010 requesting that the Court rule on the Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff failed to file a timely response. Plaintiff subsequently filed his Response to the Motion to Dismiss on January 25, 2010. Accordingly, the Court will now consider the Motion to Dismiss on the merits and the Motion for Summary Adjudication is denied as moot. Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On November 23, 2009, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendant State 3 Farm Insurance Companies (“State Farm”) and the Sullivan Defendants. In the Complaint, 4 Plaintiff alleged (1) violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Arizona 5 Civil Rights Act and (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Pursuant to Federal 6 Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Sullivan Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all 7 claims asserted against them. They argue that all four counts of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 8 # 1) should be dismissed as asserted against them because (1) Counts One and Two cannot 9 be asserted against the Sullivan Defendants because such claims cannot be made against 10 individuals; (2) Count Four is a punitive damage claim that can only be asserted as an 11 element of damages and cannot be treated as a separate cause of action; and (3) all four 12 counts are alleged against Defendant State Farm, not the Sullivan Defendants, and thus do 13 not satisfy the notice pleading requirement of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 14 In response, Plaintiff concedes that the allegations in Counts One and Two should be 15 dismissed because those Counts cannot be alleged against individuals, but contends that 16 Counts Three and Four satisfy the notice pleading requirement as asserted against the 17 Sullivan Defendants and, accordingly, the Court should not dismiss Counts Three and Four. 18 Plaintiff argues, in the alternative, that if the Court finds that Counts Three and Four do not 19 satisfy the notice pleading requirement, Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his 20 Complaint. 21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is disfavored and rarely granted. 23 Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 248–49 (9th Cir. 1997). This Court construes 24 the facts alleged in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and the Court must 25 accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. See Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 26 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff must nonetheless satisfy the pleading requirements of 27 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 28 -2- 1 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain “‘a 2 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order 3 to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 4 rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 5 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Although a complaint attacked for failure to state a claim does not 6 need detailed factual allegations, the pleader’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief 7 requires “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 8 cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted); see 5 9 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 10 1216, at 235–36 (3d ed. 2004) (stating that “the pleading must contain something more . . . 11 than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of 12 action”). A claim must be stated clearly enough to provide each defendant fair opportunity 13 to frame a responsive pleading. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996). 14 “Something labeled a complaint . . . yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to 15 whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a 16 complaint.” Id. at 1180. 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 A. Dismissal of Counts One and Two 19 As an initial matter, the Court finds that Counts One and Two should be dismissed 20 with prejudice as to the Sullivan Defendants. Counts One and Two consist of allegations for 21 violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Arizona Civil Rights Act. The 22 Sullivan Defendants assert that these Counts against them should be dismissed because such 23 actions cannot be brought against individual defendants. Plaintiff concedes that Counts One 24 and Two should be dismissed as to the Sullivan Defendants. Neither Title VII of the Civil 25 Rights Act of 1964 or the Arizona Civil Rights Act permit liability to run to individual 26 defendants. See Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1993) (stating 27 that “individual defendants cannot be held liable for damages under Title VII”); De La Torre 28 -3- 1 v. Merck Enters., Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 1066, 1079 (D. Ariz. 2008) (stating that individual 2 Defendants cannot be held liable for damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 3 or the Arizona Civil Rights Act). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Counts One and Two 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice as to the Sullivan Defendants. 5 B. Dismissal of Counts Three and Four 6 The Sullivan Defendants also argue that the Complaint should be dismissed as to them 7 because the Complaint does not sufficiently identify the parties to which each cause of action 8 is directed, and to the extent it does identify the parties, the allegations are directed only 9 against Defendant State Farm. In response, Plaintiff argues that the numerous factual 10 allegations in the Complaint that implicate the Sullivan Defendants provide fair notice to 11 them as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and that inadvertently omitting 12 the Sullivan Defendants from the individual counts should not constitute failure to adequately 13 state a claim against them. 14 While the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the factual allegations leading up to the 15 counts in the Complaint implicate the Sullivan Defendants, the language in the individual 16 counts appears to limit the allegations to Defendant State Farm. A complaint must identify 17 “whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1180. The Court will 18 not require the Sullivan Defendants to assume that certain counts are asserted against them 19 merely because they are named as parties to the Complaint and the factual allegations 20 implicate them, especially when the Counts include no mention of them and do specifically 21 name Defendant State Farm. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Counts Three and Four2 22 23 2 27 The Sullivan Defendants also argue that Count Four of Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because a claim for punitive damages should be asserted only as an element of damages and should not be treated as a separate cause of action. The Court agrees that punitive damages are a form a relief and not a separate cause of action. Quiroga v. Allstate Ins. Co., 726 P.2d 224, 226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986) (stating that “[t]here is no such thing as a cause of action simply for punitive damages. Rather, the right to an award of punitive damages must be grounded upon a cause of action for actual damages.”). While Federal 28 -4- 24 25 26 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as to the Sullivan Defendants. 2 C. Leave to Amend 3 Plaintiff requests leave to amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies therein. The 4 Sullivan Defendants do not oppose the request for leave to amend. Leave to amend should 5 be freely given “when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). “In exercising its 6 discretion with regard to the amendment of the pleadings, ‘a court must be guided by the 7 underlying purpose of Rule 15—to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the 8 pleadings or technicalities.’” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) 9 (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). This “policy of favoring 10 amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.” Id. (quoting Webb, 655 11 F.2d at 979). 12 A Court must consider the following factors in determining whether a motion to amend 13 should be granted: (1) whether the pleading at issue has been previously amended, (2) futility 14 of the amendment, (3) bad faith, (4) undue delay, and (5) prejudice to the opposing party. 15 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 16 798 (9th Cir. 1991). “Generally, this determination should be performed with all inferences 17 in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 18 1999) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)). 19 “Significantly, ‘[t]he party opposing amendments bears the burden of showing prejudice,’ 20 futility, or one of the other permissible reasons for denying a motion to amend.” Farina v. 21 Compuware Corp., 256 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1060 (D. Ariz. 2003) (quoting DCD Programs, 833 22 F.2d at 187). 23 27 Rules of Civil Procedure 8 does not require any specific organization for claims for relief, Plaintiff must clarify the underlying causes of action for which he is seeking punitive damages in order to provide fair notice to Plaintiffs. See Silvas v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, No. CV-09-265-PHX-GMS, 2009 WL 4573234, *14 (D. Ariz. Jan. 5, 2010) (dismissing separate causes of action for damages, but stating that the “remedy may be available for other underlying legal theories”). 28 -5- 24 25 26 1 In this case, the Complaint has not been previously amended and there has been no 2 showing of bad faith or undue delay. Further, Defendants have not shown that granting leave 3 to amend would be futile or would prejudice them. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff 4 leave to amend his Complaint. 5 6 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Dan and Virginia Sullivan (Doc. # 12) is GRANTED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts One and Two of Plaintiff’s Complaint 8 (Doc. # 1) are dismissed with prejudice as to Dan and Virginia Sullivan and the remaining 9 Counts are dismissed as to Dan and Virginia Sullivan for failure to state a claim, with leave 10 to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint within twenty (20) 11 days of the date of this Order. The Amended Complaint shall not contain a separate Count 12 for punitive damages. 13 14 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Adjudication of Dan and Virginia Sullivan’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 15) is DENIED as moot. DATED this 7th day of April, 2010. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
