Kinnerson v. Sunset et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion to Strike ; granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion to Strike. IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs punitive damages claim against the Town of Sunset relating to her § 1983 claims, t he plaintiffs punitive damages claim against Mayor Lavergne, Chief Guillory, Officer Savant, and Officer Treadway relating to her § 1983 claims against them in their official capacities, and the plaintiffs punitivedamages claim against the defen dants relating to her state-law claims are stricken from the plaintiffs complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, i.e., with regard to the plaintiffs punitive damages claim against Chief Guillory relating to her § 1983 claim against him in his individual capacity, the motion is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 4/17/13. (crt,Kennedy, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
PAMELA KENNERSON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-cv-02191

VERSUS

JUDGE DOHERTY

THE CITY OF SUNSET, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

ORDER

Pending before this Court are two motions to dismiss penalty, punitive, or
exemplary damages (Rec. Docs. 11 and 56). The first was filed by three defendants,
namely, the Town of Sunset,1 Mayor Cecil Lavergne (individually and in his official
capacity), and Chief Alexcie Guillory (individually and in his official capacity). The
second was filed by two other defendants, Officer Jonathan Savant and Officer Heath
Treadway (individually and in their official capacities as police officers for the Town
of Sunset). The motions are not opposed. The motions were referred to the
undersigned for ruling. (Rec. Docs. 14, 59). For the following reasons, the motions
are granted in part and denied in part.

1

The plaintiff refers to the City of Sunset, while an answer was filed on behalf of the
Town of Sunset. Assuming that the defendant entity has better information concerning whether it
should properly be called a city or a town, the term “Town of Sunset” will be used in this ruling.

BACKGROUND
Three complaints have now been filed in this lawsuit: the original complaint
(Rec. Doc. 1), the first amended complaint (Rec. Doc. 20), and another amended
complaint (Rec. Doc. 53). Because the most recent amended complaint restates all
claims asserted in the lawsuit with revisions, including a revision to the spelling of
the plaintiff’s surname, it is apparent that the plaintiff’s intent was to supercede and
supplant the prior complaints with the most recent one. Accordingly, only the
allegations set forth in the most recent complaint have been considered.
In this lawsuit, the plaintiff Pamela Kennerson alleges that, on August 19,
2011, she and others watched Sunset police officers Savant and Treadway as they
pursued someone on foot. She alleges that the police officers lost sight of the person
being pursued and were unable to capture him. The onlookers then began to laugh
at the officers.
The plaintiff claims that Officer Savant then walked up to her, twisted her arm,
pushed her down the stairs of the porch where she was standing, pulled her up by the
left arm, flipped her over, then put his knee in her back, repeatedly shoved her face
in the dirt, and arrested her, although the charges against her were later dismissed.
The plaintiff alleges that she was falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, and
deprived of her constitutional rights. She also alleges that she sustained physical,
-2-

emotional, psychological, and economic injuries. The plaintiff also asserts state-law
claims including assault, negligent injury, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
false arrest, false imprisonment, and negligent hiring. Among the claims asserted are
claims for punitive damages. The defendants now seek to have the punitive damages
claims stricken from the complaint.

LAW

AND

ANALYSIS

In her complaint, the plaintiff sued the Town of Sunset through its mayor Cecil
Lavergne, Sunset’s Chief of Police Alexcie Guillory, and police officers Jonathan
Savant and Heath Treadway. Chief Guillory was sued in his individual and official
capacities (Rec. Doc. 53 at ¶ 8) while Mayor Lavergne, Officer Savant, and Officer
Treadway were sued only in their official capacities. (Rec. Doc. 53 at ¶¶ 7, 10). The
plaintiff asserted claims for punitive damages against all of the defendants. (Rec.
Doc. 53 at ¶ 1, final paragraph on p. 5). The defendants contend that the punitive
damages claims asserted against them should be stricken, arguing that the plaintiffs
in a § 1983 action cannot recover punitive damages from a municipality or its
officials acting in their official capacities and also arguing that there is no statutory
basis for the imposition of punitive damages with regard to the plaintiff’s state-law
claims.
-3-

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states: “The court may strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” The court may do so in response to a party’s motion or on its
own motion.2 Deciding whether to strike all or a portion of a pleading lies within the
court’s discretion.3 A motion to strike under Rule 12(f) “is a drastic remedy to be
resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice.”4 Accordingly, motions
to strike made under Rule 12(f) are viewed with disfavor by the federal courts, and
are infrequently granted.5
In this case, however, the defendants’ reasoning is sound. “It is well settled
that municipalities are not subject to the imposition of punitive damages under
Section 1983.”6 Furthermore, “[i]t is equally well settled that a suit against a

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

3

In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 248, 600 F.2d 1148,
1168–69 (5th Cir. 1979), citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382 at
807 (1969). See, also, Cambridge Toxicology Group, Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169, 178 (5th Cir.
2007).
4

Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia County, Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th
Cir. 1962); see also Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d
1045, 1057 (5th Cir. 1982).
5

C. Wright & A. Miller, 5C Federal Practice & Procedure, Third Edition, § 1380.

6

Howell v. Town of Ball, No. 12-951, 2012 WL 3962387, at *4 (W.D. La. Sept. 4,
2012), citing Cook County, Ill. V. U.S. ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (2003), City of Newport v.
Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981), and Webster v. City of Houston, 689 F.2d 1220, 1229 (5th
Cir. 1982); Davis v. West Cmty. Hosp., 755 F.2d 455, 467 (5th Cir. 1985).

-4-

municipal official in his or her official capacity is simply another way of alleging
municipal liability.”7 Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiffs do not have a
valid claim for punitive damages against the Town of Sunset. The court further finds
that the plaintiff does not have a valid punitive damages claim against Mayor
Lavergne, Chief Guillory, Officer Savant, or Officer Treadway in their official
capacities because those claims are duplicative of the punitive damages claim asserted
against the town.8 Accordingly, the plaintiff’s punitive damages claims against the
town and those against Mayor Lavergne, Chief Guillory, Officer Savant, and Officer
Treadway in their official capacities are stricken from the complaint.
However, punitive damages are recoverable against municipal employees who
are sued in their individual capacities pursuant to a § 1983 claim.9 Therefore, to the
extent that the plaintiffs have asserted a punitive damages claim against Chief
Guillory in his individual capacity, that claim is not stricken from the plaintiff’s
complaint.

7

Howell, 2012 WL 3962387, at *4, citing Monell v. New York City Department of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
8

Castro Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 355 (5th Cir. 2001).

9

Givs v. City of Eunice, No. 6:05-CV-0788, 2006 WL 1831528, at *1 (W.D. La. June
29, 2006), citing Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 35 (1983), and Williams v. Kaufman County, 352 F.3d
994, 1015 (5th Cir. 2003).

-5-

Finally, it is well settled that, under Louisiana law, punitive damages are not
allowed in civil cases unless specifically provided for by statute. In the absence of
such a specific statutory provision, only compensatory damages may be recovered.10
In her complaint, the plaintiff does not identify a statutory provision that allows the
recovery of punitive damages for the state law claims that she asserts against the
defendants in this lawsuit. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s state-law punitive damages
claim is stricken from the complaint.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the moving defendants’ motions to strike (Rec. Docs. 11
and 56) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. More particularly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s punitive damages claim against the Town
of Sunset relating to her § 1983 claims, the plaintiff’s punitive damages claim against
Mayor Lavergne, Chief Guillory, Officer Savant, and Officer Treadway relating to
her § 1983 claims against them in their official capacities, and the plaintiff’s punitive
damages claim against the defendants relating to her state-law claims are stricken
from the plaintiff’s complaint.
10

See International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Seale, 518 So.2d 1039, 1041 (La.1988).

-6-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, i.e., with regard to the
plaintiff’s punitive damages claim against Chief Guillory relating to her § 1983 claim
against him in his individual capacity, the motion is denied.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on April 17, 2013.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-7-