Roberts v. Ecuanic Express, Inc. et al
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 7/25/12 (scp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
REGINA ROBERTS
PLAINTIFF
V.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-84-KS-MTP
ECUANIC EXPRESS, INC., et al
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [10].
I. BACKGROUND
This action stems from an automobile accident that occurred on October 2, 2011.
Plaintiff was driving on an interstate highway when her vehicle was struck by a
tractor-trailer operated by Defendant Alberto Beltran in the course and scope of his
employment with Defendant Ecuanic Express, Inc. Plaintiff subsequently filed a
complaint in state court, alleging multiple theories of liability as to both Defendants.
She seeks actual, compensatory, and punitive damages.
After removing the case, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s
independent tort claims – her “non-respondeat superior” claims – against Ecuanic,
including any claims of negligent hiring, negligent maintenance, negligent training,
negligent entrustment, and negligent retention.
II. DISCUSSION
“Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are viewed with disfavor and are rarely
granted.” Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (punctuation
omitted). “To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, [a plaintiff’s complaint] need
only include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners., L.P., 610 F.3d 239, 245 (5th
Cir. 2010) (punctuation omitted). However, the “complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC v. La. State, 624 F.3d 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2010)
(punctuation omitted).
“To be plausible, the complaint’s factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (punctuation omitted). “The complaint
need not contain detailed factual allegations, but must state more than mere labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 615 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2010)
(punctuation omitted). When determining whether a plaintiff has stated a valid claim
for relief, the Court must “accept all well-pleaded facts as true and construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
LLC, 624 F.3d at 210. However, the Court will not accept as true “conclusory
allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Id. Legal conclusions
may provide “the complaint’s framework, [but] they must be supported by factual
allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1940, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). A
2
plaintiff must provide more than “threadbare recitals of a cause of action’s elements,
supported by mere conclusory statements, which do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Hershey, 610 F.3d at 246 (punctuation
omitted).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s “non-respondeat superior” claims against
Ecuanic should be dismissed because Ecuanic admitted that Beltran was operating his
vehicle in the course and scope of his employment. The Courts of this state have
consistently dismissed independent negligence claims against an employer who admits
vicarious liability for an employee’s actions. See Welch v. Loftus, 776 F. Supp. 2d 222,
225 (S.D. Miss. 2011); Cole v. Alton, 567 F. Supp. 1084, 1085-86 (N.D. Miss. 1983); Nehi
Bottling Co. v. Jefferson, 84 So. 2d 684, 686 (Miss. 1956); Lee v. Harold David Story,
Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81651, at *6-*7 (S.D. Miss. July 25, 2011); Curd v. W.
Express, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116795, at *4-*5 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 2, 2010); Booker
v. Hadley, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63498, at *5-*6 (S.D. Miss. July 23, 2009). The
reasoning underlying these cases is that once an employer has admitted that it is liable
for an employee’s actions, evidence pertaining only to issues of negligent hiring,
entrustment, supervision, or maintenance becomes superfluous and possibly unfairly
prejudicial. See Lee, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81651 at *4; Davis v. ROCOR Int’l, 2001
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26216, at *19-*20 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 19, 2001).
However, Plaintiff asserted independent claims for punitive damages against
Ecuanic. This Court has previously implied – if not explicitly held – that a plaintiff’s
independent claims for punitive damages against an employer may proceed despite the
3
employer’s admission that its employee was acting in the course and scope of
employment. Lee, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81651 at *8-*9 (court conducted punitive
damages analysis for employer despite holding that admission of vicarious liability
foreclosed negligence claims); Gaddis v. Hegler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59027, at *10*13 (S.D. Miss. May 26, 2011) (court conducted punitive damages analysis for employer
despite holding that admission of vicarious liability foreclosed negligence claims);
Curd, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *8-*9 (court conducted punitive damages analysis for
employer despite holding that admission of vicarious liability foreclosed negligence
claims).1 In the opinion of the undersigned judge, this is a reasonable conclusion.
As noted above, once an employer has admitted that it is liable for its employee’s
actions, evidence pertaining only to issues of negligent hiring, entrustment,
supervision, or maintenance becomes superfluous because the employer’s liability will
necessarily depend on the employee’s liability. Lee, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81651 at *4;
Davis, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26216 at *19-*20. However, an employer can not be liable
1
Two Northern District opinions provide that a plaintiff’s demand for
punitive damages from an employer “must either stand or fall upon the actions of
the” employee. Cole, 567 F. Supp. at 1087; Hood v. Dealers Transp. Co., 459 F.
Supp. 684, 686 (N.D. Miss. 1978). Those cases, however, contemplate “the
imposition of punitive damages against defendant [employer] on account of the
gross or willful negligence of defendant’s servant.” Hood, 459 F. Supp. at 686
(modification original). In the present case, Plaintiff seeks the imposition of
punitive damages against Ecuanic on account of its own gross or willful negligence,
not Beltran’s. Furthermore, an employer’s liability for punitive damages can not, as
a matter of law, stand or fall upon the actions of the employee. The punitive
damages statute forbids vicarious liability for punitive damages. Dawson v.
Burnette, 650 F. Supp. 2d 583, 586 n. 1 (S.D. Miss. 2009); see also MISS. CODE ANN.
§ 11-1-65(1)(a).
4
for punitive damages under a theory of vicarious liability. MISS. CODE ANN. § 11-165(1)(a) (allowing punitive damages awards if the defendant against whom they are
sought acted with actual malice, gross negligence); Dawson, 650 F. Supp. at 586 n. 1;
Lee, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81651 at *6; Poe v. Ash Haulers, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 75388, at *14 n. 2 (N.D. Miss. July 12, 2011). Therefore, evidence pertaining to
the employer’s independent gross negligence would not be superfluous or redundant,
as there is no means for a plaintiff to obtain punitive damages against the employer
solely through claims against the employee. Accordingly, while dismissal of Plaintiff’s
simple negligence claims against Ecuanic – for which no punitive damages may be
awarded2 – is appropriate, dismissal of Plaintiff’s gross negligence claims against
Ecuanic would be inappropriate at this time.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Motion to Dismiss [10] filed by Defendants. The Court grants the motion as to any
independent claims for simple negligence asserted against Defendant Ecuanic Express,
Inc. Phrased differently, the Court grants the motion as to any simple negligence
claims asserted against Ecuanic except for those pursuant to a theory of vicarious
liability. The Court denies the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s independent claims for
gross negligence against Ecuanic.
2
“[S]imple negligence is not of itself evidence to support punitive damages.”
Williams v. Duckett, 991 So. 2d 1165, 1177 (Miss. 2008).
5
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 25th day of July, 2012.
s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?