Goggin v. Enterprise Leasing Company-West, LLC

Filing 34

ORDER granting in part ECF No. 4 Motion to Dismiss as to plaintiff's claim for permissive use; plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or before 07/11/2017; denying without prejudice ECF No. 29 Enterprise's Motion for Leave to supplement; granting ECF No. 30 Motion to Seal Exhibit 2 to the Motion to Supplement ECF No. 30 . Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 06/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW) Modified on 6/28/2017 to correct typo (KW).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ROBERT M. GOGGIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY-WEST, ) LLC, a Delaware Corporation; ABC ) CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive, ) BLACK AND WHITE COMPANIES, and ) DOES I-XX, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) 19 3:17-cv-00262-HDM-VPC ORDER Before the court is defendant Enterprise Leasing Company-West, 20 LLC’s (“Enterprise”) motion to dismiss the amended complaint. 21 No. 4). 22 and Enterprise replied (ECF No. 21). (ECF Plaintiff Robert M. Goggin (“plaintiff”) responded (ECF 15) 23 This action arises from an automobile accident in which plaintiff 24 was struck by a vehicle driven by James Sidney Proctor (“Proctor”). 25 Proctor crossed all lanes of traffic, drove onto a sidewalk, and hit 26 plaintiff as he was jogging. 27 harm. 28 Plaintiff Plaintiff suffered substantial bodily Enterprise owned the vehicle and rented it to Proctor. brought two claims against 1 Enterprise in the amended 1 complaint, one based on negligence and one based on permissive use. 2 The first amended complaint alleges that at the time “defendants 3 supplied and entrusted the automobile to Proctor, it knew or in the 4 exercise of reasonable care should have known that Proctor did not 5 have a valid Nevada driver’s license, and that he was an incompetent 6 and unfit driver and would create an unreasonable risk of injury to 7 persons and property on the public streets and highways.” 8 1-2 at ¶ 10). (ECF No. 9 Enterprise moves to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. 11 In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court must accept as 13 true all material allegations in the complaint as well as all 14 reasonable inferences that may be drawn from such allegations. 15 Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000). 16 of the complaint also must be construed in the light most favorable 17 to the nonmoving party. 18 (9th Cir. 2000). 19 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. 20 v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). 21 motion only if it is certain that the plaintiff will not be entitled 22 to relief under any set of facts that could be proven under the 23 allegations of the complaint. 24 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1996). 25 LSO, The allegations Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule Navarro The court can grant the Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 Enterprise argues that the amended complaint fails to contain 26 sufficient 27 Specifically, Enterprise asserts that plaintiff has not pled a duty 28 or a breach of that duty. facts to support a negligent entrustment claim. Additionally, Enterprise argues that it 2 1 “could have complied with its statutory requirements [under Nevada 2 law] without learning that the license was invalid.” 3 4). 4 negligent 5 Enterprises’s motion largely seeks detailed factual allegations that 6 are not required by Twombly or Iqbal. 7 dismiss the negligent entrustment claim is denied. (ECF No. 4 at Plaintiff’s amended complaint states a plausible claim for entrustment. In so deciding, the court notes that Accordingly, the motion to 8 Enterprise also argues that the amended complaint fails to 9 contain sufficient facts to support a claim for permissive use as 10 “there is no recognized cause of action for ‘permissive use’ in 11 Nevada.” 12 authority in support of his claim for permissive use and failed to 13 respond to Enterprise’s motion to dismiss this claim. 14 Local Rule 7-2(d), this failure constitutes a consent to the dismissal 15 of the claim. As such, the court dismisses plaintiff’s permissive use 16 claim. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff failed to provide any points and Pursuant to 17 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to add a claim for 18 a violation of NRS 483.610(1), which requires rental car companies to 19 rent vehicles only to individuals that are duly licensed. 20 provides that leave to amend should be “freely” given “when justice 21 so requires.” 22 grant leave to amend, a court considers the following factors: (1) bad 23 faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) 24 futility of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously 25 amended the complaint. 26 Cir. 2004). 27 is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved 28 by amendment.’” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a) In determining whether to Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th “‘Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 3 1 2002) (quoting Polich v. Burlington N., Inc., 942 F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th 2 Cir. 1991)). Because Enterprise does not argue that leave to amend 3 would be futile, the court will allow the amendment. 4 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is granted in part 5 as to plaintiff’s claim for permissive use. 6 amended complaint on or before July 11, 2017. Enterprise’s motion for 7 leave to supplement (ECF No. 29) is denied without prejudice. 8 motion to seal Exhibit 2 to the motion to supplement (ECF No. 30) is 9 granted. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Plaintiff shall file his DATED: This 28th day of June, 2017. 12 13 ____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 The

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?