Pate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
Filing
27
ORDER denying 15 Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Strike Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint for Personal Injuries. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 3/6/2014. (csr)
3Iii the Ent,teb Stafto flhtrttt Court
for the Ooutbern flitritt of Otorgia
huntuttk flibiton
LINDA PATE,
Plaintiff,
CV 213-166
VS.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Presently before the Court is Defendant Winn-Dixie's Motion
to Dismiss and/or Motion to Strike Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's
Complaint for Personal Injuries. Dkt. No. 15. Upon due
consideration, Winn-Dixie's motion is DENIED.
I. Factual Background
This action is predicated upon an alleged slip-and-fall at
a grocery store. At approximately 4:15 p.m. on December 23,
2011, Plaintiff Linda Pate and her husband entered a Brunswick,
Georgia Winn-Dixie grocery store as business customers. Dkt.
No. 1-1, Ex. A ¶ 8. Defendant Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. owned and
occupied this store. Id. ¶ 6. Pate alleges that water had
collected on the floor near a cooler and covered a large area,
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
1
although Pate did not see the water because the floor's shine
made the water difficult to see. Id. ¶91 9-10, 15. Purportedly,
Winn-Dixie had been experiencing this problem for a substantial
period beforehand. Id. ¶ 7. Because Winn-Dixie allegedly
failed to keep the premises safe or warn Pate about the danger,
Pate stepped in the water, slipped, and fell. Id. 191 11-16. As
a result of the fall, Pate "was seriously and permanently
injured in body and mind" and "has had substantial medical
treatment." Id. ¶91 17-18.
II. Procedural History
In September 2013, Plaintiff Linda Pate brought suit
against Defendants Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and John Doe' in the
Superior Court of Glynn County. Id. at 5. Pate claims relief
for approximately $106,467.77 in medical bills and at least
$29,000 in lost income. Id. ¶91 19-21. She also seeks punitive
damages under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1. Id. 91 22.
In December 2013, Winn-Dixie removed the case to federal
court. Dkt. No. 1. Although Winn-Dixie had filed a motion to
dismiss in state court, Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. C, and also when it
removed the case, Dkt. No. 6, the Clerk of Court ordered that
all parties re-file any pending motions, Dkt. No. 8. Therefore,
on December 18, 2013, Winn-Dixie filed its Motion to Dismiss
1
The complaint identifies "John Doe" as a managerial employee of Winn-Dixie
with responsibility to keep the premises safe. Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 3. In her
Amendment to complaint, Pate "stipulates that she does not intend to serve
John Doe." Dkt. No. 5.
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
2
and/or Motion to Strike Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint
for Personal Injuries. Dkt. No. 15.
111. Legal Standard
When ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule
12(b) (6), a district court must construe the plaintiff's
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and
accept all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint as true.
Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir.
2009) . Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual
allegations, it must contain sufficient factual material "to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Ati.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). At a minimum, a
complaint should "contain either direct or inferential
allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to
sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Fin. Sec.
Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1282-83 (11th
Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for
Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001)).
IV. Discussion
In its motion to dismiss, Winn-Dixie asks the Court to
strike or dismiss paragraph 22 of Pate's Complaint. Dkt. No.
15. Winn-Dixie's basis is that "Plaintiff's Complaint . .
does not specifically allege facts supporting a claim for
punitive damages or plead facts that would support a finding of
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
wantonness, willful misconduct, malice, fraud, oppression, or
conscious disregard of consequences." Dkt. No. 15, at 2.
Indeed, to recover punitive damages, Pate must prove "by clear
and convincing evidence that the defendant's actions showed
willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or
that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of
conscious indifference to consequences." O.C.G.A.
§ 51-12-5.1(b).
In full, paragraph 22 says:
The actions of the Defendant[] were reckless and
showed willful misconduct, wantonness,
oppression, and an entire want of care so as to
constitute a conscious, affirmative indifference
to the consequences. Plaintiff is entitled to
have and recover punitive damages in accordance
with O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1.
Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. A 91 22. Elsewhere, the Complaint asserts that
Winn-Dixie "had a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the
premises safe" and "a duty to warn of the danger of water on the
floor," both of which it failed to do. Id. ¶91 11-14.
The Complaint's allegations are sufficient to satisfy Rule
8's pleading standards and withstand Winn-Dixie's motion to
dismiss. Indeed, the Complaint did not allege specific details
from which the Court can conclude by clear and convincing
evidence that Winn-Dixie's acts or omissions warrant an award of
punitive damages; nor did it need to. Instead, "[m]alice,
intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
be alleged generally." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 9(b). Paragraph 22
does this, while the rest of the Complaint alleges facts
establishing a prima facie case against Winn-Dixie for
negligence. See Dkt. Nos. 1-1, Lx. A IT 3-22 (stating the
underlying facts); 10, at 3-6 (proffering theories of liability
under Georgia law that might support the plaintiff's claim for
punitive damages)
Notably, Winn-Dixie relies on authority in which courts—
ruling on motions for summary judgment—affirmed dismissals of
claims for punitive damages. See Dkt. No. 15, at 2-3 (citing
Troutman v. B.C.B. Co., 209 Ga. App. 166 (1993), and Bonard v.
Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 224 Ga. App. 85 (1996)). Although
discovery might not reveal facts sufficient to show a right to
punitive damages (or any right to relief) and to survive summary
judgment, the Complaint's allegations are sufficient to satisfy
Rule 8's notice requirements and weather a motion to dismiss.
Therefore, Winn-Dixie's motion is DENIED.
5
5
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
I
V. Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant Winn-Dixie's
Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Strike Paragraph 22 of
Plaintiff's Complaint for Personal Injuries is DENIED. Dkt. No.
15.
SO ORDERED, this 6TH day of March, 2014.
z q
(~_~
LISA GODBEY W OD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?