Hall v. Newmarket Corporation et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 39 Motion to Dismiss; denying 41 Motion to Dismiss Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 09/29/2011 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
THERESA HALL

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-cv-41(DCB)(JMR)

NEWMARKET CORPORATION;
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; and JOHN DOES 1-10

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the defendants Aetna Life
Insurance Company (“Aetna”)’s Motion to Dismiss (docket entry 39)
and NewMarket Corporation (“NewMarket”)’s Motion to Dismiss (docket
entry 41).

Having carefully considered the motions and the

plaintiff’s response, the memoranda and the applicable law, and
being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
The facts of this case are set forth in the Court’s Memorandum
Opinion and Order of September 29, 2010.

Hall initially sued the

defendants on state-law claims for equitable estoppel, promissory
estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress.

In its September 29, 2010 Order, the Court

concluded that Hall’s state-law claims were preempted by ERISA and
therefore dismissed them.

The Court also granted Hall leave to

amend her pleadings to assert a claim under ERISA.

Hall has filed

a Second Amended Complaint asserting two causes of action - ERISA
estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.
seek dismissal of both claims.

The defendants

The defendants bring their motions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6), which is designed “to test the formal sufficiency of the
statement of the claim for relief,” not to resolve “a contest
between the parties about the facts or the substantive merits of
the plaintiff’s case.”

5B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure: Civil 3d § 1356 (2004).

With the limited exception of

those cases described in Fed.R.Civ.P. 9, a complaint need only
satisfy the “simplified pleading standard” of Rule 8(a), which
requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).

However,

while Rule 8(a) is not exacting, it does require “a ‘showing,’
rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.”
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 n.3 (2007).

Bell

To survive a

motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain
enough factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___

U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009)(quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 561-62).
The Fifth Circuit requires that a plaintiff must show three
elements to establish a claim for ERISA estoppel: (1) a material
misrepresentation, (2) reasonable and detrimental reliance upon
that representation, and (3) extraordinary circumstances. Mello v.
Sara Lee Corp., 431 F.3d 440, 444-445 (5th Cir. 2005).

Hall also

brings a claim for material misrepresentation as a claim for breach

2

of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Plaintiff’s Response, p. 14 (citing
Curcio v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 33 F.3d 226, 235 (3rd
Cir. 1994)).
The Court finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently pled the
elements of her causes of action, and that her complaint meets the
requirements of Twombly and Iqbal.
that

there

was

no

The defendants’ contentions

fiduciary

duty

and

no

material

misrepresentations, that the plaintiff did not rely on their
representations

and

if

she

did

rely,

her

reliance

was

not

justifiable, and that there were no extraordinary circumstances,
are

issues

better

taken

up

at

the

summary

judgment

stage.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants Aetna Life Insurance
Company’s

Motion

to

Dismiss

(docket

entry

39)

and

NewMarket

Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (docket entry 41) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 29th day of September, 2011.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3