FERRER v. LABCORP et al

Filing 8

OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 12/16/14. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Docket No.: 14-cv-6578-WJMMF

JANET FERRER,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION

LABCORP, et al.,
Defendants.

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
This is a personal injury case originally filed in state court and removed
without objection on the basis of diversity because all the parties are citizens of
different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Before the Court is a motion to dismiss Count Five of the Complaint against coDefendant Broadspire for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).
In Count Five of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she was covered by an
automobile insurance contract with Broadspire and seeks personal injury protection
(“PIP”) benefits under the terms of that automobile insurance contract. Broadspire
argues that it cannot be held liable because it is not an insurance carrier. Broadspire
asks that the Court take judicial notice of the State of New Jersey Department of
Banking & Insurance’s list of Licensed Insurance Carriers, which does not list
Broadspire as an insurance carrier.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a
complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. The moving party bears the burden of showing that no claim has
been stated. Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). In deciding
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must take all allegations in the
1

complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See
Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc., 140 F.3d 478, 483 (3d
Cir. 1998) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975)).
Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, “a
plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Thus, the factual allegations must be sufficient to raise a plaintiff’s right to relief
above a speculative level, such that it is “plausible on its face.” See id. at 570; see
also Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008).
“[D]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific,
requiring the reviewing court to draw on its experience and common sense.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663-64 (2009). A claim has “facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). While “[t]he plausibility standard is not akin
to a ‘probability requirement’ . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility.” Id. at
678.
As a general matter, a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may not
consider matters extraneous to the pleadings. In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec.
Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997). However, there are exceptions to this
rule. On a motion to dismiss, the court may consider matters of public record and
“undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a
motion to dismiss if the plaintiff’s claims are based on the [attached] document[s].”
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.
1993); Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2007). Moreover, “documents
whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party
questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered.”
Pryor v. Nat’l Coll. Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002).
While no one disputes that Broadspire is not on the list of New Jersey’s list of
licensed insurance carriers, this Court is not prepared to dismiss the otherwise
plausible claim against Broadspire without any affidavits or evidence about
Broadspire’s identity and relationship to this case. For these reasons, the motion to
dismiss is hereby denied without prejudice. An appropriate order follows.

2

/s/ William J. Martini
________________________________
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: December 16, 2014

3