Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Community Health Center, Inc. et al
Filing
105
ORDER & REASONS denying 92 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Helen Ginger Berrigan on 6/20/2012. (KAC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
ET AL
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC.,
ET AL
SECTION ʺCʺ (5)
NO. 08‐810
ORDER AND REASONS
This matter comes before the Court on motion to dismiss reconventional demand
filed by Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Property &
Casualty Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate County
Mutual Insurance Company (collectively “Allstate”). Rec. Doc. 92. Having
considered the record, the memoranda of counsel and the law, the Court denies the
motion for the following reasons.
The plaintiffs have filed a complaint against the defendants, Community Health
Center, Inc., Community Health & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Kathy Hampton, Leon
Hampton and Mid City Imaging under diversity jurisdiction alleging fraud and unjust
enrichment against the defendants for their “marketing and solicitation project”
involving individuals allegedly injured in automobile accidents allegedly caused by
Allstate insureds and the defendants’ provision of false medical reports and bills to
attorneys and Allstate. Rec. Doc. 1. The defendants, in turn, filed a counterclaim
against the plaintiffs for race‐based discrimination and harassment. Rec. Doc. 35 at ¶¶
29–561.
In this motion, the plaintiffs seek dismissal of the counterclaim under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. They argue that allegations against Allstate in
counterclaim are not supported by facts and present frivolous and speculative
allegations. In so doing, Allstate refers to deposition testimony supportive of their
claims of fraudulent activity on the part of the defendants. The defendants oppose the
motion with the argument that the allegations, taken in the light most favorable to the
defendants, are sufficient, that the deposition testimony should not be considered on a
motion to dismiss, and that the defendants do not need to detail factual allegations in
the pleading. Rec Doc. 97.
In considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the court must
accept all well‐pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d. 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). Although courts are required
to take as true all factual allegations in the complaint, they are not bound to accept
labels, conclusions, or formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Bell Atl.
2
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise
a right of relief above the speculative level. The pleading must contain something . . .
more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of’] a legally
cognizable right of action, on the assumption that all the allegation in the complaint are
true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). The plaintiffs
must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at
570. “[C]onclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” Fernandez‐Montes v. Allied
Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1993).
To defeat a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “contain either direct allegations
on every material point necessary to sustain a recovery” or “contain allegations from
which an inference fairly may be drawn that the evidence on these material points will
be introduced at trial.” Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973, 975 (5th Cir. 1995)
(citations omitted). Therefore, a plaintiff must “plead specific facts not mere conclusory
allegations” to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim. Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace, 954
F.2d 178, 281 (5th Cir. 1992).
Under the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss, the deposition testimony is
not considered, and Allstate’s motion is subject to dismissal. In so ruling, the Court
3
notes that the legal bases for their claims cited by the defendants in their opposition are
not included in their counterclaim, which cites to Title VII, unspecified federal and state
law, and unspecified constitutional provisions. Rec. Doc. 35 at ¶¶ 42, 45. These
citations are not the same as those set forth in the opposition. Counsel for the
defendants are advised that Defendants can not amend their counterclaim through
statements contained in their opposition. If defendants wish to amend the
counterclaim, they must do so by separate motion for leave to amend.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss reconventional demand filed by
Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Property &
Casualty Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate County
Mutual Insurance Company is DENIED. Rec. Doc. 92.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of June, 2012.
____________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?