Settlemyers et al v. Play LV Gaming Operations, LLC, No. 2:2009cv02253 - Document 14 (D. Nev. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 6 Motion to Dismiss. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action are dismissed with leave to amend. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/3/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
:...-) ...... 7.. .-.- . s - -x g . 1 h 2 ' . . ' .'-.. ', ' 1 '!1G e-*î 2212 1 ' i . '. 3 . 4 k ) '' t ' 7'''' 5 6 UN ITED STA TES DISTR ICT C O URT 7 DISTRIC T OF N EVA DA 8 9 TAM ARA SETTLEM YERS and W ILLIAM SETTLEM YERS, 10 Plaùltifrs, 11 v. 12 PLAYLV GAM ING OPERATIONS,LLC, 13 Defendant. 14 15 l6 ) 2:09-CV-02253-RCJ-(LRL) ) ) ) (àltl):zIt ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PlaintiffsTamara Settlemyers,(tt-famara''),and W illiam Settlemyers,('dW illiam,''collectively, 17 ttplaintifrs''),suedDefendantPlayt-v GamingOperations,LLC,(ttDefendant''),allegingvariousclaims 18 based on Defendant's denialofm edicalleave to Tam ara and tennination ofheremployment. Presently 19 beforetheCourtisDefendant'sMotiontoDismiss(//6).Defendant'smotionreliesonseveralexhibits Settlemyers et al v. Play LV Gaming Operations, LLC Doc. 14 20 outsideofthecomplaint.Plaintifrsfiledanopposition,treatingthemotionasoneforsummaryjudgment 21 (//8). Defendantreplied,mairltaining thatitsmotitm isamotion to dismiss(//9). TheCouztheld a 22 hearing on April26,2010.The Courtdisregardsevidencebeyond the scope ofthe com plaintand treats 23 Defendant'smotion asam otion to dism iss. TheCourtnow issuesthe following order.IT IS HEREBY 24 ORDERED thatDefendant'sMotiontoDismiss(#6)isGRANTED IN PARTAND DENIED IN PART. 25 26 1. BAC K G RO UN D Plaintiffs allege the following in their complaint. W illiam and Tarnara are husband and w ife. 27 (Compl.(//1)113).TamaraworkedasacocktailwaitressforDefendantanditspredecessors.Tamara 28 wasamemberoftheCulinaryWorkers'Union,Local226,(theç$Union''),andsubjecttoaCollective 1 Dockets.Justia.com l BargainingAgreement,(theçicBA'').(1d.atllll10,12,21). lnMay2007,shesuFeredsevereinjuries 2 tohershouldersandannsduetothephysicalactivityrequiredbyherjob.Theseinjuriespreventedher 3 from performingherduties.(1d.at!!(12,13).Defendantrefusedtogranthermedicalleavefrom May 4 throughNovember2007.(f#.at!!14,23).PlaintifrsallegeTamarawasentitledto12weeksofmedical 5 leaveundertheFamilyMedicalLeaveActof1993,29U.S.C.j2601etseq.,(the<tFMLA''),andunder 6 heremploymentcontractaswellastosix monthsofmedicalleaveundertheCBA. (Compl.(//1)5526, 7 31,38).OnNovember14,2007,DefendantterminatedTamara'semployment.(1d.at!g !(15,24). 8 9 II. LEG AL STAND ARD A courtmustdism issacause ofaction thatfailsto state aclaim uponw hich reliefcan be granted. 10 Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6).W henconsidering amotion to dismissunderRule 12(b)(6)forfailureto state l1 a claim ,dism issalisappropriate when the complaintdoesnotgivethe defendantfairnotice ofa legally l2 cognizableclaim and the groundson which itrests.See BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550 U .S.544,555 13 (2007).A complaintmuststatethegroundsuponwhichaplaintifrisentitledtoreliell A mererecitation 14 ofthe legalelem ents ofa cause ofaction is insum cknt. 1d. ln considering w hetherthe com plaintis l5 suflicientto state aclailq thecourtwilltakea1lm aterialallegationsastrueand construethem in thelight l6 mostfavorabletotheplaintiE SeeNLIndus.,Inc.v.Kaplan,792F.2d896,898(9thCir.1986).The 17 court,however,isnotrequired to acceptas true allegationsthatare m erely conclusory,unw arranted l8 deductions offact,orunreasonable inferences. See Sprewellv.Golden State W arriors,266 F.3d 979, 19 988(9thCir.2001). 20 $61t1onamotionunderRule12(b)(6)or12(c),mattersoutsidethepleadingsarepresentedtoand 21 notexcludedbythecourt,themotionmustbetreatedasonetbrsurrlmaryjudgmentunderRule56,55 22 Fed.R.Civ.P 12(d). The courtmay consideri6documentsattached to thecomplaint,documents 23 incorporatedbyreferenceinthecomplaint,ormattersofjudicialnotice''withoutconvertinga12(b)(6) 24 motiontodismisstoamotionforsurnmaryjudgment.UnitedStatesv.Ritchie,342F.3d903,908(9th 25 Cir.2003).t$A copyofawritteninstrumentthatisanexhibittoapleadingisapal4ofthcpleadingfor 26 allpurposes.'' Fed.R.Civ.P.10(c). A documentisincorporated by refcrencein acomplaintifthe 27 complaintextensively refersto the docum entand the docum entform sa basis ofa claim . Ritchie,342 28 F.3dat908.S'gojnamotiontodismissacourtmayproperlylookbeyondthecomplainttomattersof 2 1 publicrecord anddoingsodoesnotconvertaRule12(b)(6)motiontooneforsurnmaryjudgment.'' 2 Mackv.S.BayBeerDistribs.,798F.2d 1279,1282 (9th Cir.1986),abrogated on othergrounds, 3 AstoriaFed.Sav.(j:LoanAss' nv.Solimino,501U.S.104 (1991). 4 5 111. DISC USSIO N D efendantmovesto disrnissPlaintiffs'com plaintin itsentirety.D efendantessentially advances 6 tw o generalarguments. On onehand,DefendantarguesthatPlaintifls'com plainttçisnothing m ore than 7 an am algamation ofconclusory statem ents''and failsto meeteven the minim alrequirem ents ofnotice 8 pleading. (Mot.to Dismiss(#6)6:9-11,6:19-20,7:21-22,8:2-3,8:13-14). On the otherhand, 9 D efendantrelies on severalunauthenticated exhibitsto argue thatPlaintiflk'factualallegations in thek 10 complaintarenottrue.(SeeJ' #.at3:2-5:15,6:14-15,6:26-27,7:16-17).lnadditiontothesegeneral 11 argum ents,Defendantargues thatreview ofPlaintiffs'claim for breach of the CBA is lim ited to the 12 CBA'Sgrievanceandarbitrationprocedure.(f#.at7:8-11). 13 Beyond describing the standard foraRule l2(b)(6)motion,Defendantssmotion iscompletely 14 devoid oflegalauthority. The same istrue regarding Defendant'sreply. ln theiropposition,Plaintiffk 15 noted Defendant'sreliance on evidence outside thepleadingsand lack offoundation forthisevidence. 16 D espite this,D efendanthasrefused to budgefrom itsoriginalposition and maintainsthatitm ay rely on 17 itsunauthenticatedexhibitsinamotiontodismissunderRule12(b)(6). (Def'sReply(//9)2:18-28, 18 3:8-12).TheCourtwillexcludeDefendant'sexhibitsandconsiderthemotionunderRule 12(b)(6). l9 Applykv this standard,the CourtconcludesthatPlaintifrs'third,fourth,sixth,and seventh causesof 20 action are dismissed w ith leave to am end. 21 A . FirstCause ofAction:Term ination ofEm ploym entin V iolation ofthe FM LA 22 Under the FM LA,ttan eligible employee shallbe entitled to a totalof 12 workw eeksofleave 23 duringanylz-monthperiod....gblecauseofaserioushcalthconditionthatmakestheemployeeunable 24 to perform theft m ctionsofthepositionofsuchemployee.''29U.S.C.j 1612(1).ltisSeunlawfulforany 25 employerto interferew ith,restrain,ordeny theexercise ofortheattem pttoexercise,anyrightprovided'' 26 undertheFM LA or:1to dischargeorinanyothermannerdiscrim inateagainstanyindividualforopposing 27 anypracticemadeunlawful''bytheFMLA.29U.S.C.2615(a).Toestablishaprimafaciecaseof 28 retaliation in violation ofthe FM LA,aplaintifr mustestablish:(1)heengaged in aprotected activity 3 1 undertheFMLA;(2)hesufreredadverseactionbytheemployerfollowingtheprotectedactivity;and 2 (3)theadverseemploymentactionwascausallylinkedtotheprotectedactivity.Raymondv.Albertson's 3 Inc.,38F.Supp.2d 866,869(D.Nev 1999). 4 D efendantargues that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a claim for violation ofthe FM LA w ith 5 enough speciticityto survivedismissal.(M ot.to Dismiss(#6)6:19-20). In theircomplaint,Plaintifs 6 allegethatDefendantviolatedtheFM taA bynotproviding Tam araw iththe required 12w eeksofmedical 7 leaveperyearandterminatingherwhensherequestcdlcaveundertheFMLA.(Compl.(//1)!!24-26). 8 The FM LA protectsTarnara'srightto 12w eeksofmedicalleave.Tennination isanadverseemploym ent 9 action.A causalli* can beinferred through proximity intim e.Plaintiffshavestateda claim upon which 10 reliefmay be granted. 11 B. Second Cause ofA ction:Breach ofContract 12 EW claim forbreachofcontractrequirestheplaintif todcmonstratethefollowing elements:(1) l3 theexistenceofavalid contract' ,(2)abreachby thedefendant' ,and (3)damagesasaresultofthe 14 breach.'' Cohen-Breenv.Gray Television Group,lnc.,661F.Supp.2d 1158,1171(D.Nev 2009). l5 ln theircom plaint,PlaintifrsallegethatDefendant'spoliciesandproceduresconstitutedacontract 16 underwhich Tamara wasdue 12 weeksofmedicalleave. (Compl.(#l)!! 31-32). They allege 17 Defendantbreached thecontractby denying Tam arathe 12 weeksofleave,causing Plaintiffsdamages. 18 (/#.atjg jg34-35).Defendantcontendsthatthepolicyhandbookexplicitlysatesitisnotacontract.(Mot. 19 toDismiss(//6)7:4-7).ThoughPlaintiffs'complaintreferencestheemployer'spoliciesandprocedures, 20 presum ably contained in the handbook,the Courtcarmotconsiderthe purported copy ofthe handbook 21 providedbyDefendantbecauseitlacksauthenticationandPlaintifrsdisputeitsauthenticity.(SeePl.'s 22 Opp'n(//8)5:6-9). Defendantalso contendsthatTamarabreachedtheemploymentcontractbynot 23 showinguptoworktwothnesinarow.(Mot.toDismiss(//6)6:27-7:3).Thisisnotevidenceonthe 24 face ofthe complaint.Furthennore,w hetherTarnara'sultim ate tennination w asdue to herviolation of 25 D efendant'spoliciesdoesnotafrectwhetherDefendantbreached itsemploymentcontractbynotgranting 26 Tamara medicalleave, Taking Plaintifrs'allegations as true,Plaintifrshave stated a claim upon w hich 27 reliefm ay be granted. 28 /// 4 l C. Third Cause ofAction:Breach ofThird-part' y Beneficiary Contract 2 Thisclaim isbased on D efendant'sallegedbreach ofthe CBA . Underthe CBA,D efendantshall 3 grantan employee with a bona fide illness or serious health condition a leave ofabsence ofup to six 4 monthsduringany12monthperiod.(Pl.'sOpp'n(#8)Ex.1atj l3.01(b)).lftheillnessorinjuryis 5 compensableunder theN evada lndustrialInsuranceA ct,D efendantshallgrantthe employeeindefinite 6 leave forthe time period thata treating physician certifesthatthe employee isunable to perform her 7 duties.(fJ.atEx.1at9 13.01(a). 8 The CBA also statesthatal1grievancesshallbe fled and subm itted to D efendantby theUnion 9 andthatallunresolvedgrievancesshallbeheardbytheBoardofAdjustment,consistingofuptothree 10 representativesofthe Union andup to threerepresentativesofDefendant. (P1.'sOpp'n (#8)Ex.1 at 11 j21.02).1tçztnygrievancenotsettledbytheBoardofAdjustmentmayberefen'edtoarbitration....'' 12 (f#.atEx.1atj21.02(d)).Thearbitrator'sdecisionisfmalandbinding.(1d.atRx.1atj21.04). 13 Nonnally,an arbitration clause precludesjudicialreview ofan employee's claim againstan 14 employerforbreach ofacollective-bargaining agreem ent.But,iftheunion failsto pursue thegricvance 15 and arbitration processin good faith,the courtsm ay hearthe cmployee'sclaim for breach. See H ines 16 v.AnchorMotorFreight,Inc.,424 U.S.554,563-66(1976). To obtainjudicialreview despitean 17 arbitration clause,Plaintiffsm ustS'notonly show thattheirdischarge w ascontrary to the contractbut 18 mustalso carry theburden ofdem onstrating breach ofduty by the Union.''f#.at570-7 1. Theunion's 19 refusalalonetoproceedthroughthegrievanceandarbitrationprocessdoesnotauthorizejudicialreview; 20 the refusalm ustbe in bad faith. See id.at564-67. 21 D efendantarguestllatPlaintifsmaynotprosecute theirclaim forbreach oftheCBA in thisCourf 22 becauseofthe arbitration clause. (M ot.to Dismiss(#6)7:8-11). Nothing inPlaintiffs'complaint 23 suggeststhatTamarafledgrievances,hadhergrievancesheardbytheBoardofAdjustmentoranarbiter, 24 orthattheUnionactedin bad faith in advancing hergrievances.Therefore,Plaintiffs'claim forviolations 25 oftheCBA isdismissedwithleavetoamend.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.15(a)(2)(dt-f'hecourtshouldeelygive 26 leavetoamendwhcnjusticesorequires.''). 27 :,8 1TheCourtmayconsidertheCBA withoutconvertingthemotiontooneforsummaryjudgment because itisincorporated by reference in the com plaint. 5 l D. Fourth CauseofAction:TortiousBreach oftheIm plied CovenantofG ood Faith and Fair 2 Dealing 3 Thetortofbad faith isinapplicable to ordinary breachesofcontract. ltappliesonly to çirareand 4 exceptionalcases.''GreatAmericanIns.Co.v.Gcn.Builders,Inc,934P.2d257,354(Nev.1997)(per 5 curiam).To establishaclaim fortortiousbadfaith,thebreachmustinvolveaspecialelementofreliance 6 orfiducia!'y duty. f#.at354-55. Plaintifrsm ustshow thatDefendantw as in a superiororentrusted 7 positionand engaged inSçgrievousandpertidiousmisconduct.''1d.at355(quotingK MartCorp.v. 8 Ponsock,732P.2d 1364,1371(Nev.1987)).Plaintitrsmustalso show thatordinarycontractdamages 9 are inadequatetom akethem w hole and punish D efendantforitsm isconduct.GreatAm erican,934 P.2d 10 at355. 1l In the em ploym entcontext,Nevadarecognizesacause ofaction fortortiousdischargew hen an 12 employer'sconductviolatescompelling public policy.Ozcwrlv.VisionAirlines,Inc.,216 P.3d 788,791 13 (Nev.2009).However,Nevadadoesttnotrecognizeanactionfortortiousdischargewhenaplaintifrhas 14 an adequate,com prehensive,statutory rem edy.''1d. 15 D efendantarguesthatPlaintiffs'claim fortortiousbreach oftbe im plied covenantofgood faith 16 and fairdealing failsto stateaciaim uponw hich reliefcanbegrantedbecause itisderivativeofPlaintiffs' 17 claimsforbreachofcmploymentcontractandbreachoftheCBA.(Mot.to Dismiss(#6)7:12-13). 18 Because Plaintif s claim forbreach ofemploym entcontractsurvivesdism issal,D efendant's argument 19 fails. 20 Defendantalso generally argues thatPlaintitrs'complaintfailsto raise any plausible claim for 2l relief Plaintiffs'complaintcontainsnothing m ore than aroterecitalofthe legalclementsofatortclaim 22 forbadfaith.(SeeCompl.(#1)!!43-.47).ItmerelyassertsthatDefendantttactedinbadfaithanddealt 23 unfairly with''Tam araregarding m edicalleavew ithoutspecifying whatfactsm akecontractand statutory 24 reliefinadequate.(Seeid.atjk44). Furthermore,Plaintifrshavefailedtopleadfactualallegationsthat 25 suggestthisisararc and exceptionalcase where thetortofbad faith applies.Therefore,Plaintifrs'claim 26 for tortious breach ot-the implied covenant ofgood faith and fair dealing is dism issed w ith leave to 27 amend.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.15(a)(2). 28 /// 6 1 E. Fifth Cause of A ction: Term ination of Em ploym ent in Violation of Nevada Revised 2 Statutes613.330 3 Under N evada law ,itis unlawfulfor an employcr to discharge an employee or discriminate 4 againstthe employeew ith regardsto histerm sofemploym entbecause ofhisdisability. Nev.Rev.Stat. 5 j613.330(1).2 6 DefendantarguesthatPlaintifshavefailedtoallegetheirclaim forviolationofthej613.330with 7 enoughspecifcity.(Mot.toDismiss(#6)7:21-22).PlaintifrsallegethatDefendantrefusedtoprovide 8 Tamra with m edicalleave and reasonable acconzmodations w hile she suffbred from a disability and 9 terminatedheronthebasisofherdisability.(Compl.(//1)!!48-56).Plaintifrshavestatedaclaim upon 10 w hich reliefm aybe granted. 11 G . Sixth C ause ofA ction:lntentionalInfliction ofEm otionalD istress 12 To establish a cause ofaction for intentionalintliction ofem otionaldistress,a plaintifrm ust l3 establish:ç$(1)extremeandoutrageousconductwitheithertheintentionof,orrecklessdisregard for, 14 causingemotionaldistress,(2)theplaintifl'shavingsuflbred severeorextremeemotionaldistressand 15 (3)actualorproximate causation.'' Barmettlerv.RenoAir,Inc.,956 P.2d 1382,1386 (Nev.1998) 16 (quotingStarv.Rabello,625P.2d90,91-92(1981)).ttlElxtremeandoutrageousconductisthatwhich 17 isioutsideallpossiblcboundsofdecency'andisregarded astutterlyintolerablein acivilized conununity' 18 ....tlpqersonsmustnecessarilybeexpectedandrequiredtobehardened...tooccasionalactsthatare 19 deGnitelyinconsiderateandunkind.'''Maduikev.Agency Rent-zl-car,953 P.2d24,26(Nev.1998) 20 (quotingCaliforniaBookofApprovedJurylnstructionsNo.12.74). çtiabilityforemotionaldistress 21 generallydoesnotextendtoçmercinsultssindignities,threatsl,)annoyances,pettyoppressions,orother 22 23 2Section 613.350 specitically statesthatitisnotunlaw fulto hire,em ploy,orfailorrefuseto hire apersonbased on hisdisabilitywhere:(physical,m entalorvisualcondition ...isabona fideoccupational 24 qualifcationreasonablynecessaryto thenorm aloperationofthatparticularbus inessorenterprise.''N ev. . Rev.Stat.j613.350(1),(2).But,itdoesnotstatethatïtisnotunlawfultodlschargeanemployeebased 25 on disability if physicalcondition is a bona fide occupationalqualifcation. The N evada legislature specitically m adeitnotunlaw fulto discharge an employeeon thebasisofageifhe islessthan 40 years 26 old. Nev.Rev.Stat.j 613.350(3). This suggeststhattheNevadalegislatureintended to exclude dischargefrom thepracticesmadelaw fulby subsections1 and 2.However,even ifan employerm aynot gy discharge an em ployeebecause ofhisdisability when ççphysical,m entalorvisualcondition ...isabona fide occupationalqualifcationreasonablynecessarytothenormaloperation ofthatparticularbusiness 28 orenterprise,''hemay stilldischarge the disabled employee forreasonsotherthan because of his disability.SeeNev.Rev.Stat.j613.330(1). 7 1 trivialities.'''Burnsv.Mayer,175F.Supp.2d 1259,1268(D.Nev.2001)(quotingCandelorev.Clark 2 CountySanitationDist.,752F.Supp.956,962(D.Nev.1990)).Thelessextremetheoutrage,themore 3 evidenceofphysicalinju!yorillnessfrom emotionaldistressisrequired.Chowdhly v.NLVIL lnc.,85l 4 P.2d459,483 (Nev.1993)(quotingNelson v.Cj/y ofluas Vegas,555,665P.2d 1141,1145(Nev. 5 1983)). 6 DefendantarguesthatPlaintiffsclaim forintentionalinfliction ofem otionaldistressfailsbecause 7 Plaintiffsm ade only a conclusory allegation thatDefendantacted w ith reckless disregard forTamara's 8 wellbeing.(M ot.toDismiss(//6)8:1-8).tdM alice,intent,knowledge,andotherconditionsofaperson's 9 mind may be alleged generally.'' Fed.R.Civ.P.9(b). Thus,Plaintiffshave satisfactorily pled the 10 required state ofm ind forintentionalinfliction ofem otionaldistress. 11 Defendant also generally attacks Plaintiffs'complaint for failure to allege grounds for relicf 12 sufficientto raise a cognizable claim . Plaintiffscom plaintcontainsno factualallegationsthatsuggest 13 D cfendant engaged in any extreme or outrageous conduct. Denialof leave and term ination are not 14 extrem e and outrageous. Therefore,Plaintifrs'claim for intentionalintliction ofem otionaldistressis l5 dismissedwithleaveto amend.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.15(a)(2). 16 G . Seventh C auseofA ction:Loss ofConsortium 17 A plaintiffm ay recover forlossofcompanionship,cmotionalsuppol-t,love,felicity,and sexual 18 relationsagainstadefcndantw ho negligently orintentionally hanned hisspouse.Anderson v.Northrop 19 Corp.,250 Cal.Rptr.l89,194 (Ca1.Ct.App.1988). A plaintiffmay recoverforlossofconsortium 20 whethertheinjurytothespouseisphysicalorpsychological.1d. Thepsychologicalinjurymustbe 2 1 severe,such as ëfneurosis,psychosis,chronicdepressïon,orphobia suflicïentto substantially dïsturb the 22 m aritalrelationship on more than a tem porary basis.'' Id.at 195. 23 D efendant argues that Plaintifrshave failed to allege their claim for loss ofconsortium with 24 enoughspecifkity.(M ot.toDismiss(//6)8:13-14).Plaintiffs'allegethatDefendant'sactionscaused 25 W illiam tolosethefullcompanionshipandservicesofhiswife.(Compl.(//1)IJ62),But,thecomplaint 26 doesnotindicatehow orwhyDefendant'swrongfulconductresultedininjurytoTamarathatprevented 27 W illiam from enjoyingfullconsortium withher.PlaintiffsassertthatTamara'smedicalconditioncaused 28 Defendantto cornm itw rongfulacts againsther,notthatDcfendant'sw rongfulacts caused Tam ara's 8 1 medicalcondition.PlaintifsallegethatTamarasufrereddtpain,suflbring,anguish,andfrustration.''(1d. 2 at!! 29,46,55,59). Butthese allegationsdo rise to the levelofltneurosis,psychosis,chronic 3 depression,orphobia sum cientto substantiallydisturb them aritalrelationship on morethan atemporary 4 basis''andcannotsustainaclaim forlossofconsortium.Anderson,250Cal.Rptr.at195(internalquotes 5 ornmited).Therefore,Plaintiffs'claim forlossofconsortium isdismissedwithleavetoamend.SeeFed. 6 R.Civ.P.15(a)(2). 7 H. Punitive dam ages 8 Though it is not clear thatD efendant challenged Plaintiffs'allegations of malice in general, 9 Plaintiffs have defended theirallegationsofm alice. In orderto receive an aw ard ofpunitive damages, 10 Plaintifrs must show ,by clear and convincing evidence,that D efendant breached a non-contractual 11 obligationwith malice. Nev.Rev.Stat.j 42.00541). ttM alice''içmeansconductwhich isintended to 12 injureapersonordespicableconductwhichisengagedinwithaconsciousdisregardoftherightsor 13 safety ofothers.'' Nev.Rev.Stat.j42.001(3). tttconsciousdisregard'meanstheknowledgeofthe 14 probablehannfulconsequencesofawrongfulactand awillfuland deliberatefailureto actto avoid those 15 consequences.''Nev.Rev.Stat.j42.001(1). 16 PlaintifrsallegeD efendantacted with m alice in severaloftheirclaim s,presum ably in the hope of 17 receiving an award ofpunitive damages.ttM alice,intent,know ledge,and otherconditionsofaperson's 18 mindmaybeallegedgenerally.''Fed.R.Civ.P.9(b).PlaintifrshavesatisfedRule9bygenerallyalleging l9 malice. Therefore,the Courlw illnotdismiss Plaintifrs'allegation ofm alice. 20 21 22 lV. C O NCLUSIO N Accordingly,ITISHEREBYORDERED thatDefendant'sMotiontoDismiss(#6)iSGRANTED 23 IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thatPlaintifrs'Third,Fourth,Sixth,and Seventh CausesofAction 25 are D ISM ISSED w ith leave to am end. 26 DATED :This 3rd day ofAugust,2010. 27 28 ' Robert .Jones UN ITED STATES D S RICT JUDG E 9
]]>
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.
