Hood et al v. Water Treatment & Controls Company

Filing 78

RULING granting 53 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Therefore, City of Donaldsonville is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from this action. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 1/23/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CASEY HOOD, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
WATER TREATMENT & CONTROLS
COMPANY

16-235-SDD-RLB

CONSOLIDATED WITH
GLEASON, ET AL.
VERSUS
WATER TREATMENT & CONTROLS
COMPANY

16-256-SDD-RLB

SMITH, ET AL.
VERSUS
WATER TREATMENT & CONTROLS
COMPANY

16-255-SDD-RLB

LIGHTFOOT
VERSUS
WATER TREATMENT & CONTROLS

16-807-SDD-RLB
RULING

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim1 filed by Defendant, The City of Donaldsonville (“Donaldsonville”). Plaintiffs, Casey

1

Rec. Doc. 53.
37111
Page 1 of 6

Hood, et al. (“Plaintiffs”), filed an Opposition2 to this motion. For the following reasons,
the motion will be granted.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND3
Plaintiffs claim that, on or about March 22, 2016, they were harmed by elevated

levels of chlorine dioxide in the water system. Plaintiffs’ injuries and symptoms include
“but [are] not limited to throat irritation, sinus irritation, dry skin and mouth, and fear and
fright.”4 Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for themselves and “those persons in or
near the community of Donaldsonville, Louisiana who sustained compensable damages
from the fault of defendants…” and for “fear, anguish, discomfort and inconvenience, as
well as pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychiatric and psychological damage,
evacuation, shelter in place, and property damage.”5
Relating to Donaldsonville, Plaintiffs claim that Donaldsonville “knew or should
have known that its equipment in question was defective and faulty and in violation of
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals standards.”6 Plaintiffs also argue that
Water Treatment & Controls Company (“Water Treatment”) “had control and garde of the
testing procedures, testing equipment and technology used to perform testing of the water
system.”7
This matter was originally filed in the Twenty-Third District Court for the State of
Louisiana, Parish of Ascension on March 23, 2016 and was removed to this Court on

2

Rec. Doc. 64.
The Court draws the factual background from the following documents: Rec. Doc. 53-1, Rec. Doc. 53-2,
Rec. Doc. 65, and Rec. Doc. 78.
4
Rec. Doc. 53-1.
5
Id.
6
Id. (internal citations omitted).
7
Id. (internal citations omitted).
37111
Page 2 of 6
3

April 28, 2016.8 Donaldsonville now seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6).
II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)
When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[t]he ‘court accepts all well-

pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’”9 The Court
may consider “the complaint, its proper attachments, documents incorporated into the
complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.”10 “To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead ‘enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”11 In Twombly, the United States Supreme
Court set forth the basic criteria necessary for a complaint to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss. “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does
not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”12 A complaint is also insufficient if it
merely “tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”13 However,
“[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads the factual content that allows the

8

This case was removed pursuant to diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)(quoting Martin K. Eby Constr.
Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004)).
10
Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dorsey v. Portfolio
Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2008)).
11
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d at 205 (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas
Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d at 467).
12
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations and brackets omitted)
(hereinafter Twombly).
13
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal citations omitted)
(hereinafter “Iqbal”).
37111
Page 3 of 6
9

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.”14 In order to satisfy the plausibility standard, the plaintiff must show “more than
a sheer possibility that the defendant has acted unlawfully.”15 “Furthermore, while the
court must accept well-pleaded facts as true, it will not ‘strain to find inferences favorable
to the plaintiff.’”16 On a motion to dismiss, courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”17
B. Duty-Risk Analysis
As this case presents a Louisiana negligence claim, the Court relies on Louisiana
jurisprudence to analyze the claim presented.18 In a Louisiana negligence case, courts
use the Duty-Risk analysis.19 Under the Duty-Risk analysis, a “Plaintiff must prove that
the conduct in question was a cause-in-fact of the resulting harm, the defendant owed a
duty of care to the plaintiff, the requisite duty was breached by the defendant, and the risk
of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached.”20 A plaintiff
must prove each of the above enumerated elements under Duty-Risk to successfully
plead a negligence claim.21 As the Fifth Circuit stated in Schamburg v. State Farm Mutual
Auto Insurance Co.: “Whether a duty is owed is a question of law. As part of the duty-

14

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
16
Taha v. William Marsh Rice University, 2012 WL 1576099 at *2 (quoting Southland Sec. Corp. v. Inspire
Ins. Solutions, Inc., 365 F.3d 353, 361 (5th Cir. 2004).
17
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d
209 (1986)).
18
See Shakeri v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 816 F.3d 283, 290-91 (5th Cir. 2016); “In resolving issues of
state law we are bound to apply the law as interpreted by the state’s highest court…but if no final disposition
is directly on point, we must take an Erie-guess, predicting how that court would rule.”(internal citations
omitted).
19
Schamburg v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 521 Fed. Appx. 434, 440 (5th Cir. 2011).
20
Daye v. General Motors Corp., 97-1653 (La. 9/9/98); 720 So.2d 654, 659.
21
Id.
37111
Page 4 of 6
15

risk analysis, the plaintiff must show that the risk of harm was within the scope of the
protection afforded by the duty breached.”22
Plaintiffs failed to allege a duty owed by Donaldsonville relating to the alleged
negligent conduct. Plaintiffs’ only mention of any legal duty owed is the conclusory
statement that Donaldsonville’s alleged actions “were in contravention of the laws of the
State of Louisiana and the ordinances of the Parish of Ascension, which are pleaded
herein as if copied in extenso.”23 Plaintiffs’ boiler plate pleading fails to specify a duty
owed by Donaldsonville under Louisiana statutory or jurisprudential law.24 Plaintiffs’
failure to allege any specific duty owed, other than the conclusory allegation that
Donaldsonville’s alleged actions violated the entire body of Louisiana State and
Ascension Parish law, is the exact type of “conclusory” pleading that the United States
Supreme Court specifically held could not survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.25
Accordingly, Donaldsonville’s Motion to Dismiss26 is GRANTED.27

22

521 Fed. Appx. 434, 440 (5th Cir. 2011).
Rec. Doc. 1-2.
24
Id.
25
Twobly, 550 U.S. 555.
26
Rec. Doc. 53-1.
27
The Court need not engage in a review of the other elements under Louisiana Duty-Risk as all elements
must be met to sustain a viable negligence claim under Louisiana law. Plaintiffs have failed to state a duty
owed by Donaldsonville – a required element under Duty-Risk. See supra note 17.
37111
Page 5 of 6
23

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Donaldsonville’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to

Dismiss28 is GRANTED.
Therefore, Donaldsonville is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on January 23, 2017.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

28

Rec. Doc. 53.
37111
Page 6 of 6