Woltman, et al v. St. Tammany Parish Coroner's Office et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
APRIL WOLTMANN AND LESLIE
WOLTMANN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 16-6492

CHARLES PRESTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
CAPACITY AS CORONER OF ST.
TAMMANY PARISH, ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 10)
filed by defendants, St. Tammany Parish Coroner’s Office, through its coroner Dr.
Charles Preston, and Dr. Charles Preston, individually and in his capacity as coroner of
St. Tammany Parish. Plaintiffs April Woltmann and Leslie Woltmann oppose the
motion. The motion, noticed for submission on August 10, 2016, is before the Court on
the briefs without oral argument.
On August 13, 2015, Mr. Shawn Woltmann, a resident of Florida, died while
visiting Slidell, Louisiana. The St. Tammany Parish Coroner’s Office picked up Mr.
Woltmann’s body. Mr. Woltmann had been severely injured in a work-related accident
in 2014, and was receiving worker’s compensation benefits. At the time of his death, Mr.
Woltmann was married to plaintiff April Woltmann, and had one child from a previous
relationship, plaintiff Leslie Woltmann.
According to the Complaint, Mrs. Woltmann informed the St. Tammany Parish

Page 1 of 4

Coroner’s Office about the pending worker’s compensation claim and the importance of
obtaining a conclusive cause of death to determine whether Mr. Woltmann’s death was
related to his employment-related accident. Mrs. Woltmann alleges that she advised the
staff at the coroner’s office that she would have a private autopsy performed if the
coroner’s autopsy was inconclusive.
At this point Defendants’ characterization of the events, as portrayed in the
Motion to Dismiss, completely diverges from the version that Plaintiffs allege. According
to Defendants, Plaintiffs abandoned Shawn Woltmann’s remains and made no effort to
claim his body for over ninety days following his death. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs allege in
detail the contacts that they, and their attorney, had with the coroner’s office during the
time frame when they supposedly abandoned Mr. Woltmann’s body. Subsequently,
Defendants cremated Mr. Woltmann’s body without obtaining permission thereby
depriving Plaintiffs of the opportunity to have a private autopsy performed in support of
the worker’s compensation claim.
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint arguing that the coroner is immune
from the claims asserted based on La. R.S. § 13:5713(L). Section 13:5713(L)(1) states:
Liability shall not be imposed on an elected coroner or his support staff
based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform
their policymaking or discretionary acts when such acts are within the
course and scope of their lawful powers and duties.
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:5713(L)(1). The provisions of this immunity do not apply to acts
or omissions which constitute inter alia outrageous, reckless, or flagrant misconduct.
Id. § (L)(1)(b).
In the context of a motion to dismiss the Court must accept all factual allegations

Page 2 of 4

in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff=s favor.
Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
(1974); Lovick v. Ritemoney, Ltd., 378 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004)). However, the
foregoing tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009). Thread-bare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550, U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
The central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is whether, in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v.
Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413,
418 (5th Cir. 2008)). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to Astate a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.@ Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). AA
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.@ Id. The Court does not accept as true Aconclusory allegations, unwarranted
factual inferences, or legal conclusions.@ Id. (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d
690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations.
Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950).
The Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded their case so as to
withstand dismissal at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. The allegations in the Complaint control
the analysis, and Plaintiffs’ version of events stands in stark contrast to the version that
Defendants posit in support of their motion. Plaintiffs’ allegations do not foreclose the
Page 3 of 4

possibility that immunity will not apply or at the very least that an issue of fact will
prevent summary determination.
As to the question of whether the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office is an entity
capable of being sued, the Court sees no reasons to piecemeal the issues before it at this
juncture.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 10) filed by
defendants, St. Tammany Parish Coroner’s Office, through its coroner Dr. Charles
Preston, and Dr. Charles Preston, individually and in his capacity as coroner of St.
Tammany Parish is DENIED.
August 19, 2016

JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4