Peterson v. Time Insurance Company et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 31 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Findings and Recommendations re 46 Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 11/23/2011. (dle)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
MICHAEL PETERSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TIME INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
ASSURANT HEALTH,
)
JOHN ALDEN LIFE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, AETNA US HEALTH
)
CARE, AETNA HEALTH & LIFE
)
INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
AND JOHN DOES 1, 2, & 3,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

CV 11–81–M–DWM–JCL

ORDER

The plaintiff, Michael Peterson, filed a complaint against the defendants on
May 5, 2011, alleging various insurance related claims. On September 22, 2011,
Aetna Health & Life Insurance Company moved to dismiss Mr. Peterson’s
complaint, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. (Dkt # 31). Aenta moved alternatively for a
more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Id.
Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch issued his findings and recommendation
on November 1, 2011. (Dkt # 46). Judge Lynch recommended denying Aetna’s
1

motion. Id. Aetna did not file any objections to Judge Lynch’s findings and
recommendation. Accordingly, the Court reviews the findings and
recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus.
Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
The Court agrees with Judge Lynch’s findings and recommendation and
adopts them in whole. Mr. Peterson has adequately stated a claim under Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). Alternatively, the Court denies the motion for a definite statement because
Aetna has either already obtained the information it seeks or it can obtain that
information through discovery. See C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist., 691 F. Supp. 2d
1170, 1191 (E.D. Cal. 2010).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Aetna Health & Life
Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for a more definite
statement, (dkt # 31) is DENIED.
DATED this 23rd day of November 2011.

2