SEYMOUR et al v. LIFE CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., No. 2:2009cv00444 - Document 15 (W.D. Pa. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 5 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to defendant's right to raise these issues in a motion for summary judgment brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Signed by Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 7/9/09. (map)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SEYMOUR et al v. LIFE CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, INC. Doc. 15 t IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DONALD E. SEYMOUR, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-0444 ) ) ) LIFE CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM and ORDER Gary L. Lancaster, District Judge. July This is a tort action. John, Plaintiffs, Donald, 1, 2009 Roberti and Richard Seymour are the survi v ing sons of Robert E. Seymour. Defendant Life Care Retirement Communities, and operates community. the Friendship Village of South Hills Inc., owns retirement Mr. Seymour was a resident of Friendship Village at the time of his death in August of 2008. He owned his residential unit and a storage garage at Friendship Village. Mr. Seymour's sons assert that Friendship Village personnel entered their father's storage unit after his death, and discarded his personal property. They bring intentional claims under infliction of Pennsylvania emotional law for distress conversion and seek and both compensatory and punitive damages. Dockets.Justia.com Friendship Village has filed a motion to dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and any prayer for punitive damages [doc. no. 5]. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion, without prejudice. 1 In considering a Rule 12 (b) (6) motion, we must be mindful that Federal courts require notice pleading, as opposed to the heightened standard of fact pleading. Rules of Civil Procedure "requires Rule 8 of the Federal only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. '" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). (citing However, even under this lower notice pleading standard, a plaintiff must do more than recite the elements of a cause of action, and then make a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief under it. Instead, a plaintiff must make a factual showing of his entitlement to relief by alleging sufficient facts that, when taken as true, suggest the required elements of a particular legal theory. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1. Plaintiffs claim that the motion is untimely and should be denied on that basis. While we certainly do not encourage parties to miss deadlines set by the rules and orders of the court, and while we note that defendant had already missed even the allegedly extended deadline for pleading in response to the complaint before it contacted the court for permission to file a motion to dismiss, we have nevertheless considered the merits of the motion and deny it on that basis. 2 at 1965. The amount and type of facts needed to satisfy this requirement will depend on the context of the case and the causes of action alleged. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, et al., 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 200B). Therefore, when deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6), we apply the following rules. The facts alleged in the complaint must be taken as true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of plaintiffs. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965; Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231; Rowinski v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc' 39B F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005). l We may not dismiss a complaint merely because it appears unlikely or improbable that plaintiffs can prove the facts Twombly I alleged or will ultimately prevail 127 S.Ct. at 1965, 1969 n.B. on the merits. Instead, we must ask whether the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary elements. the end, if I in view of the facts alleged conceived that the plaintiffs could l l Id. at 1965. In it can be reasonably upon a trial l establish a case that would entitle them to relief, the motion to dismiss should not be granted. It at 1969 n.B. is on this standard that Friendship village's motion to dismiss. the court has reviewed Based on the pleadings of record and the briefs filed in support of and opposition to the motion, the court is not persuaded that dismissal is appropriate at this time. 3 The sons have sufficiently pled facts in support of their claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 2 to Friendship Pennsylvania Village's law that a contentions, claim for we find intentional no Contrary edict in infliction of emotional distress cannot be based on the destruction of personal property under dependent. any circumstances. Instead, Whether it was outrageous, the extreme, tort is fact or shocking for Friendship Village to enter Mr. Seymour's storage garage, without notice to his sons, one of whom was his executor, and throwaway everything inside of it depends on the facts of the case. Whether doing so was a negligent mistake, a reckless act, or an intentional act aimed at causing the sons distress depends on the facts of the case and the state of mind of the Friendship Village personnel. Despite its attempt to the contrary, Friendship Village cannot obtain a ruling on these questions at the motion to dismiss stage. The sons have sufficiently pled their claim. As such, we will allow it to proceed. 2. Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has never explicitly adopted Section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which establishes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, we assume for purposes of this motion, as does Friendship Village, that the cause of action exists in Pennsylvania, and that the sons must plead in conformity with that section in order to avoid dismissal. Toney v. Chester County Hospital, 961 A.2d 192, 201 (Pa. Super. 2008). 4 .... We also will not dismiss the sons' prayers for punitive damages. Again, they have sufficiently alleged that the conduct of Friendship Village was outrageous caused them great ultimately prove emotional that that the prayer for reckless distress. they are question for another day. I I and/or wanton and Whether the sons entitled to such damages At this point in the case punitive damages is so will is a we cannot say I deficient and unsupportable that it must be stricken from the complaint. The motion to dismiss will be denied in its entirety. Our ruling does not prevent Friendship village from raising these arguments in a developed record. motion for summary judgment An appropriate order follows. 5 on a more fully IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DONALD E. SEYMOUR, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) LIFE CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., ) ) ) Defendant. AND NOW, Civil Action No. 09-0444 ) ) this ORDER !I- day of July, 2009, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendant Life Care Retirement Communities, Inc.'s motion to dismiss [doc. no. 5] is DENIED, without prejudice to its right to raise these issues in a brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. cc: All Counsel of Record motion for summary judgment
]]>
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.
