Comfort v. Choice Hotels International, Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting 35 Motion to Strike. Plaintiff may bring an appropriate motion to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages at a later time, subject to the requirements of Idaho Code § 6-1604. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (klw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

GRANT COMFORT,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00219-EJL-CWD
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC., and NB&J, LLC., a limited
liability company, dba RODEWAY INN
BOISE,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages
claim, filed on July 8, 2016. (Dkt. 35.) Defendants argue the punitive damages claim is
not properly before the Court pursuant to Idaho Code § 6-1604.
The motion is fully briefed. Having reviewed the record herein, the Court finds the
facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly,
in the interest of avoiding delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the
decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the motion will be
decided on the record before this Court without oral argument. Dist. Idaho L. Rule 7.1(d).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

BACKGROUND
On March 4, 2016, Plaintiff Grant Comfort filed a complaint for special, general,
and punitive damages for personal injury against Defendants Choice Hotels International,
Inc. and NB&J, LLC, dba Rodeway Inn Boise in the United States District Court for the
District of Montana. (Dkt. 1.) NB&J moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer venue pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.S. 1404(a). (Dkt. 3.) The Montana District Court entered an order granting
NB&J’s motion to change venue, finding Idaho to be the proper venue. The matter was
transferred to this Court on June 1, 2016.
The complaint alleges that, on August 13, 2015, Comfort checked in at the
Rodeway Inn in Boise. Upon stepping into the bathroom to bathe, Comfort alleges he
stepped on a hypodermic needle that had been lying on the floor. The next day, Comfort
allegedly sought medical treatment, which involved an exam and blood test. Comfort
contends that, as a condition of employment, he must undergo periodic drug and alcohol
screening, and that because of the needle stick, he will be required to be continuously
tested for contagious diseases in the future. In the prayer of the complaint, Plaintiff seeks
an award of punitive damages.
Defendants argue Idaho law requires leave of the court to plead punitive damages.
Plaintiff contends that Idaho Code § 6-1604(2) is merely a procedural requirement, and
because this matter was brought in federal court, federal procedural law applies.
Accordingly, Plaintiff argues the punitive damages claim is properly pled, because in a
diversity case, federal procedural law controls.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s argument is directly contrary to controlling Idaho law and previous
cases decided by this Court. Claims for punitive damages are substantive in nature and
Idaho law is controlling. Bauer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 2:08–cv–00284–LMB,
2010 WL 2595291, at *5 (D. Idaho June 23, 2010) (citing Strong v. Unumprovident
Corp., 393 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1025 (D. Idaho 2005) (“The question of whether to permit a
claim for punitive damages is substantive in nature and accordingly is controlled by
relevant Idaho case law.”); citing Doe v. Cutter Biological, 844 F.Supp. 602, 610 (D.
Idaho 1994)); Windsor v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co., 684 F.Supp. 630, 633 (D. Idaho
1988) (“After careful review of the applicable authorities, the Court holds that § 6–
1604(2) is substantive in nature and therefore controlling in federal court in a diversity
case.”). 1
Idaho Code § 6–1604 allows the trial court to grant a motion to amend to seek
punitive damages only if, “after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes
that, the moving party has established ... a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial
sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” Later, at the trial stage, an award of
punitive damages is permissible only where the claimant proves, “by clear and
convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the
party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.” Id. But first, before
1

Plaintiff’s arguments are not well taken. Plaintiff has not explained why Idaho law should not be followed in this
case. In fact, Plaintiff failed to cite to any of the cases previously decided by this Court, and which are directly
contrary to Plaintiff’s argument. The Court finds Counsel’s assertion that he “is not aware if this question has ever
been decided by the Idaho Federal District Court” borders on both sanctionable and unethical conduct. The Court is
especially troubled in this regard because local counsel appeared on behalf of Plaintiff on June 13, 2016, and the
motion to strike was filed on July 8, 2016.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

allowing a party to allege a claim for punitive damages, there is a statutorily mandated
requirement that a hearing be held. Pointedly, “after weighing the evidence presented,”
has been interpreted to mean that a hearing must be held before a complaint may be
amended to add a claim for punitive damages. See Doe v. Cutter Biological, 844 F.Supp.
602, 609 (D. Idaho 1994).
Based upon controlling Idaho authority, the motion will be granted.

ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Dkt. 35) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may bring an
appropriate motion to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages at a later
time, subject to the requirements of Idaho Code § 6-1604.

DATED: October 19, 2016

_________________________
Honorable Candy W. Dale
United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4