Hayes v. Kentucky General Assembly et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, ; Defendant's docket nos. 7,8,9,14,15,20, and 27 be SUSTAINED; and matter DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND STRICKEN from docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 9/26/16.(SMT)cc: COR, Hayes via USMail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
at ASHLAND
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-97-HRW
PLAINTIFF,
BRADLEY STEVENS HAYES,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
CHEVRON,
A.K.STEEL,
ARCADIS U.S., INC.,
GEOSCIENCE, INC.,
CITY OF ASHLAND, KY,
BOYD COUNTY, KY,
JOHN GAMBILL and
LARRY C. BARKER,
DEFENDANTS.
This matter is before the Court upon the Motions to Dismiss of the Defendants [Docket
Nos. 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, and 27]. Defendants Arcadis U.S., INC., and City of Ashland, Kentucky
also filed Motions for a More Definite Statement [Docket Nos. 10, 27]. Plaintiff responded to
most of the motions [Docket Nos. 18, 19, 21, 22, 23]. For the reasons stated herein, the Com1
finds that Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as, as such,
dismissal is warranted.
I.
Plaintiff Bradley Hayes filed this Complaint on October 23, 2015 against a panoply of
Defendants. He alleges that various defendants are responsible for injuries and damages to his
grandfather and father, said ittjuries supposedly resulting from toxic conditions on the property. He
states that his grandfather died in 1956, that an autopsy revealed he was contaminated and poisoned
by various heavy metals, and that his father also suffered severe problems related to toxic substances
on the land. Plaintiff alleges fraudulent documents, intent and causation, and in addition to damages,
seeks "to end Human Suffering on this land." Mr. Hayes does not allege any injury to himself or
his propetty. Rather, he appears to allege claims on behalf of his grandfather and father, both of
whom are deceased. Notably, Mr. Hayes does not claim that he represents the estates of either
his father or grandfather.
In addition, the Complaint includes a vague and incoherent statement of claims under
KRS 413. 140 and 413.3000. However, the former is a statute oflimitation listing actions that
must be brought within one year and KRS 411.300 is the first subsection in Kentucky's Products
Liability Act. It is unclear how either of these statutes relate to Plaintiffs allegations.
The Defendants seek dismissal of all claims alleged against them herein.
II.
Dismissal ofa complaint is warranted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ifit fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. With respect to a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Estate ofEzra G. Smith v. United
States, 509 Fed.Appx. 436 (61h Cir. 2012) that:
[t]he Supreme Court held in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007) that to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule I 2(b)(6) a
complaint must contain (I) enough facts to state a claim to reliefthat
is plausible; (2) more than a formulaic recitation of a cause of actions'
elements; and (3) allegations that suggest a right to relief above a
speculative level. (internal citation omitted) ... A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged. (internal citation omitted) ... For a complaint
to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content and
the reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly
suggestive of a claim entitling a plaintiff to relief. (internal citation
omitted) Where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
2
alleged--but it has not show[n]--that the pleader is entitled to relief.
"Conclusory assertions, e.g., that. .. [the] defendants engaged in 'outrageous' and
'unlawful' behavior ... are insufficient to state a claim that is plausible on its face." Ogle v.
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 513 Fed.Appx. 520, 522-523 (61hCir. 2013). The "complaint
must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements to sustain a
recovery under some viable legal theory." Bishop v. Lucent Technologies, Jnc.,520 F.3d 516, 519
(61h Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). As the Sixth Circuit stated in Bishop:
[c]oncluso1y allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
allegations will not suffice. Even under Rule l 2(b)( 6), a complaint
containing a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion of a
legally cognizable right of action is insufficient. (internal citations
omitted) The factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level; they must state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.
Bishop, 520 F.3d at 519 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis original). "At the very least, trial
and appellate courts should not have to guess at the nature of the claim asserted." Kafele v.
Lerner, Sampson & Rothfi1ss, 161Fed.Appx.487, 491 (6u,Cir. 2005). See also
Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434 (61h Cir. 1988)(holding that "more than
bare asse11ions of legal conclusions is ordinarily required to satisfy federal notice pleading
requirements.'')
Finally, a motion to dismiss based on the expiration of the statute of limitations is
analyzed under the same standard. "Like other Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, a motion to
dismiss on statute of limitations grounds should be granted 'when the statement of the claim
affirmatively shows that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief "
3
New Eng. Health Care Employees Pension Fund v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 336 F.3d 495, 501 (6th
Cir.2003). In the statute of limitations context, the Court must ask, "is the claim simply out of
time?"
III.
The Defendants argue various theories in support of dismissal: deficient pleading, lack of
standing, to name a few. However, the most glaring defect in the Complaint is the time which
has passed between the alleged injuries and the filing of this civil action.
KRS 413.140(I)(a) sets a one-year statute of limitations for injuries to the person of the
plaintiff. This one-year statute of limitations period also applies to wrongful death claims, as the
wrongful death statute, KRS 411.130, does not contain any limitation. See Conner v. George W.
'
Whitesides Co., 834 S.W.2d 652, 653-54 (Ky. 1992); Gaither v. Commonwealth, 161 S.W.3d
345 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004). Pursuant to KRS 413.180, when a personal representative is appointed
within one year from the date of death, the personal representative has one year from the date of
appointment within which to bring a wrongful death claim or any surviving claim of the
decedent. See KRS § 413.180. In no event may such claims be filed more than two years from
the date of death. See Conner, 834 S. W.2d at 654.
In the present case, the Plaintiff does not say when his father died, but alleges that the
grandfather died in or around 1956. Plaintiff also does not state when he knew or should have
known that there were environmental conditions on the property that could have caused harm.
However, his grandfather's death and subsequent autopsy were sufficient to put family members
on notice for investigation and discovery of responsible pmiies. The same can be said for the
death and subsequent autopsy of Plaintiffs father. Plaintiffs negligence claim is clearly time-
4
barred on its face pursuant to KRS 413 .140, which requires that such a claim be brought within
one year, and there is no allegation of equitable tolling or facts plead which would satisfy the
requirements of the same.
IV.
Plaintiff fails to plead a cognizable legal claim and fails to state a claim upon which this
Court can find any relief. Moreover, Plaintiffs claims are time-barred under all applicable
statutes of limitation.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
[Docket Nos. 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, and 27] be SUSTAINED and this matter be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the docket of this Court.
This
/}It~
o\
day of September, 2016.
~·'
1!1
"''"* '""'~
~
'-"'1i1ii
5
Signed By:
Henrv R. Wilhoit. Jr.
United State11 Dlatrlot JUdQe
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?