Klaybor v. Flowers Baking Company of Batesville, LLC et al

Filing 41

ORDER, Granting 20 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by Banc of America Leasing & Capital LLC: Granting Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice is not warranted under the circumstances. Consequently, the Court finds that the interests of justice suggest that a dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 10-6-14. (cmh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KENNETH KLAYBOR, Independent
Administrator of the Estate of Matthew
Klaybor, Deceased
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-095-SMY-DGW

vs.
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY of
BATESVILLE, LLC, an Arkansas
Corporation, FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a
Georgia Corporation, and BANC OF
AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC, a
Delaware Corporation
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Banc of America Leasing & Capital,
LLC’s (BOA) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 20). For the following
reasons, the Court Dismisses the Second Amended Complaint against defendant Banc of
America Leasing and Capital, LLC. Without prejudice.
1. Facts
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that on December 13, 2013, a 2012 Isuzu box
truck left the northbound lane of Route 127 and entered the southbound lane of that highway
resulting in serious injuries and the death of Matthew Klaybor. (Doc. 20). The plaintiff brought
suit on behalf of the Estate of Matthew Klaybor against the defendants, including Banc of
America Leasing, LLC. (Doc. 20).
Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC was the lessor of the 2012 Isuzu box truck
involved in this occurrence which was leased to Defendant Flowers Baking Company of

Batesville, LLC. (Doc. 20). As part of its leasing contract, BOA Leasing reserved the right to
enter and inspect the vehicle to confirm its existence, condition and proper maintenance (Doc.
20). Plaintiff has not alleged any specific acts of negligence or unlawfulness in its Complaint
against BOA. In his Response to BOA’s motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reserve ruling on this
motion until he has had the opportunity to conduct discovery to determine if BOA can be held
liable for any injuries. (Doc. 27)
2. Analysis
Courts are reluctant to dismiss a case on technical grounds and prefer to decide cases on
their merits. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 (1962).

All of the well-pleaded factual

allegations contained in the amended complaint must be taken as true and construed in a light
most favorable to the plaintiff. H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 249 (1989).
Dismissal for failure to state a claim is properly granted only if “it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957).
Rule 8 does not require plaintiffs to plead the “elements” of legal theories, or facts
corresponding to each element. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 510-11 (2002);
Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G., 953 F.2d 1073, 1077–78 (7th Cir.1992). Therefore, when federal
courts entertain claims under state law, it is not necessary to plead facts matching elements of
legal theories. See Hefferman v. Bass, 467 F.3d 596, 599 (7th Cir.2006); AXA Corporate
Solutions v. Underwriters Reinsurance Corp., 347 F.3d 272, 277 (7th Cir.2003).
Although the complaint might not contain all of the facts that would be necessary to
prove a claim, “a filing under Rule 8 is not supposed to do that.” Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d
761, 764 (7th Cir.2003). Instead, the Complaint “should be ‘short and plain’ and suffices if it

2

notifies the defendant of the principal events.” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). Here, the
plaintiff’s allegations against BOA have not sufficiently described the events giving rise to the
claims.
The Graves Amendment provides:
(a) IN GENERAL. An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or
leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall
not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision
thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an
affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that
results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the
vehicle during the period of the rental or the lease, if-(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade
or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and
(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the
owner (or an affiliate of the owner).
49 U.S.C. § 30106 (definitions omitted). Illinois courts have routinely held the Graves
Amendment expressly preempts liability claims against commercial renters and lessors of motor
vehicles after the effective date of the Graves Amendment. See Johnson v. XTRA Lease LLC,
2010 WL 706037, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (dismissing motor vehicle liability claim against
defendant “engaged in the business of leasing a fleet of approximately 100,000 trailers to third
party customers”).
The Complaint brings suit against Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC, as a lessor.
Consistent with its name, BOA Leasing leased the 2012 Isuzu box truck to co-defendant Flowers
Baking Co. of Batesville, LLC in its ordinary course of business. (Doc. 20-Exhibit 1). Daniel
Hodapp was not an employee of BOA Leasing and that no employee of BOA Leasing was
driving the box truck for Flowers Baking Co. The only way Plaintiff can avoid Graves
Amendment preemption, is to plead independent negligence by BOA Leasing. See 49 U.S.C. §

3

30106(a)(2). The Complaint does not set forth any facts that plausibly suggest BOA Leasing
committed any independent act of negligence.
Plaintiff essentially concedes that he has not sufficiently stated a case against BOA and
that he is not in a position to do so at this time. Additionally, plaintiff provides no case law in
support of his proposition that reserving judgment on a motion to dismiss would be appropriate
in this case, and the Court does not see any reason to do so. Nonetheless, granting Defendant's
motion to dismiss with prejudice is not warranted under the circumstances. Consequently, the
Court finds that the interests of justice suggest that a dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.
3. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint is GRANTED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 6, 2014

_/s/_Stack M. Yandle_
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE

4