Welles v. Aamodt

Filing 38

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/23/2016. (Romine, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:15-CV-613-BO

HARRIS B. WELLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORMAN AAMODT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has
responded, defendant has replied, and the matter is ripe for ruling. A hearing was also held on
the matter before the undersigned on August 2, 2016, at Raleigh, North Carolina. For the
reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action in Wake County Superior Court on October 21, 2015, alleging
claims under North Carolina common law for alienation of affection and criminal conversation
based on defendant's affair with plaintiffs then-wife. Defendant removed the action to this
Court on the basis of its diversity jurisdiction on November 20,2015. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441;1332.
This Court denied plaintiffs motion to remand by order entered April21, 2016. Defendant has
moved to dismiss the action against him, arguing that the causes of action alleged in the
complaint are unconstitutional and therefore fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

Plaintiff has alleged in his complaint that he and his now-former wife were lawfully
married on June 5, 1993, and that they separated on May 1, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that prior to
defendant's deliberate interference in plaintiffs marital relationship plaintiff and his wife
enjoyed a good and loving marriage that produced two children. Plaintiff alleges that as of
January 12, 2014, and for at least one year prior thereto, defendant, who had actual knowledge of
plaintiffs marriage, willfully and intentionally seduced, enticed, and alienated the affections of
plaintiffs wife from plaintiff and engaged in sexual intercourse in North Carolina with plaintiffs
wife prior to her separation from plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "requires only a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief' and which provides "the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 93 (2007) (internal quotations, alterations, and citations omitted). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion
tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986).
When acting on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)( 6), "the court should accept as true all
well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff."

Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). A complaint must allege enough
facts to state a claim for relief that is facially plausible. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). Facial plausibility means that the facts pled "allow[] the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," and mere recitals of
the elements of a cause of action supported by conclusory statements do not suffice. Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint must be dismissed if the factual allegations do not

2

nudge the plaintiffs claims "across the line from conceivable to plausible." Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570.
Review of plaintiffs complaint in light of the applicable standard reveals that plaintiff
has stated a plausible claim for relief under North Carolina law. See Pharr v. Beck, 147
N.C.App. 268, 271, 554 S.E.2d 851, 854 (2001) (elements of tort of alienation of affection are

(1) an existing marriage with love and affection, (2) which love and affection was alienated by
(3) the malicious acts of the defendant); Nunn v. Allen, 154 N.C. App. 523, 535 (2002) (elements
oftort of criminal conversation are (1) actual marriage between the spouses and (2) sexual
intercourse between defendant and plaintiffs spouse during the marriage).
"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) ... does not resolve contests surrounding the
facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party ofN Carolina v.

Martin, 980 F.2d 943,952 (4th Cir. 1992). The Court recognizes that in rare circumstances there
are sufficient facts available on the face of the complaint to rule on an affirmative defense,

Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007), but the Court does not find such
circumstance to exist here, and therefore denies the motion to dismiss at this stage of the
proceeding.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) [DE 10] is denied.

SO ORDERED, this

~J

day of August, 2016.

'y~A~ w.~h
TERRENCE W. BOYLE
~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

1