Hall v. Delgado Community College et al

Filing 18

ORDER AND REASONS granting 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's claims against FARA are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is given leave to amend her Complaint within 20 days of this Order to the extent that she can plausibly state a claim against FARA in its role as the third-party administrator for Louisiana's Office of Risk Management. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANNA HALL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-67

DELGADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE ET AL.

SECTION "H"

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss (R. Doc. 16). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of the termination of Plaintiff, Dr. Anna Hall, from her
job as a professor at Delgado Community College. Plaintiff alleges that she
began working as an instructor at Delgado in August of 1997. In September of
2013, Dr. Hall took sick leave for a period of six days. She alleges that she was
then suspended from her duties in November of 2013 when her medical issues
resurfaced and was terminated in December of 2013. She states that she was
not given a written explanation of her suspension and that the written reason
1

indicated for her termination was "poor performance." She further alleges that
Delgado failed to follow its own internal procedures in her termination, including
its professor evaluation policy, its formal grievance policy, and its notice
provisions. Plaintiff's chief complaints appear to be wrongful termination, denial
of due process rights, and failure to provide reasonable accommodations for her
disability. Plaintiff first filed her Complaint in state court against Delgado
Community College ("Delgado"), the Louisiana Community and Technical
College System ("LCTCS"), the Board of Supervisors of Community and
Technical Colleges,1 the Louisiana Board of Regents, and F.A. Richard &
Associates, Inc. (“FARA”).
Defendant the Board of Supervisors of Community and Technical Colleges
removed the case to this Court and then filed a motion to dismiss. The Court
granted the motion, dismissing the defendants Delgado and LCTCS and the
claims for ADA reasonable accommodations and due process violations.
Subsequently, Defendant FARA filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FARA's Motion argues that
Plaintiff has no claim against FARA under Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute
because FARA is not an insurance provider.
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead enough

1

Plaintiff's state court Complaint incorrectly referred to this Defendant as the Board
of Supervisors of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System.

2

facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."2 A claim is "plausible
on its face" when the pleaded facts allow the court to "[d]raw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."3 A court must
accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and must "draw all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favor."4 The Court need not, however, accept as true
legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.5
To be legally sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a "sheer
possibility" that the plaintiff's claims are true.6 "A pleading that offers 'labels
and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action'"
will not suffice.7 Rather, the complaint must contain enough factual allegations
to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each
element of the plaintiffs' claim.8
LAW AND ANALYSIS
FARA filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has not opposed this Motion.
The Court may not, however, simply grant the instant Motion as unopposed.
2

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 547 (2007)).
3

Id.

4

Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009).

5

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 667.

6

Id.

7

Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

8

Lormand, 565 F.3d at 255–57.

3

The Fifth Circuit approaches the automatic grant of dispositive motions with
considerable aversion.9 Accordingly, this Court has considered the merits of
FARA's Motion.
In its Motion, FARA contends that it is an improper defendant in this
action pursuant to Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute. Louisiana’s Direct Action
Statute allows plaintiffs to bring a direct action against their liability insurers.10
The statute explicitly states that an injured person may bring an action against
the "insurer."11 It is undisputed that FARA is not an insurer. Indeed, the
Plaintiff's Complaint states that FARA is a third-party administrator for the
Louisiana Office of Risk Management. In addition, Plaintiff's Complaint does
not make any specific allegations against FARA or even mention its role or
actions as third-party administrator. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
plead facts under which FARA could be held liable. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
claims against FARA are dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Movant's Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
claims against FARA are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is
given leave to amend her Complaint within 20 days of this Order to the extent
9

See, e.g., Servicios Azucareros de Venezuela, C.A. v. John Deere Thibodeaux, Inc., 702
F.3d 794, 806 (5th Cir. 2012); Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918 (5th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam); John v. State of Louisiana (Bd. of Trs. for State Colls. and Univs.), 757 F.2d 698, 709
(5th Cir. 1985).
10

La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1269.

11

Id.

4

that she can plausibly state a claim against FARA in its role as the third-party
administrator for Louisiana’s Office of Risk Management.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of September, 2015.

___________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5