DeVerna v. Rite Aid of North Carolina, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER: the court DISMISSES as moot defendants' motion to dismiss [D.E. 7] and GRANTS Lee's motion to dismiss [D.E. 21]. Plaintiff's IIED claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 8/2/2017. (Jenkins, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:17-CV-27-D

SUSAN DEVERNA,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

)

RITE AID OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
RITE AID HDQTRS, CORP., JIN LEE,
ECKERD CORPORATION d/b/a RITE AID,
Defendants.

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)
)

On March 2, 2017, defendants Rite Aid ofNorth Carolina, Inc., and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.
(collectively "defendants") moved to dismiss plaintiff Susan Devema's intentional infliction of
emotional distress ("liED") claim [D.E. 7]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On March 30, 2017,
Devema voluntarily dismissed her liED claim against defendants and limited that claim to defendant
Jin Lee ("Lee") individually [D.E. 20].
OnApril18, 2017, Lee moved to dismiss Devema's liED claim [D.E. 21]. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). On May 4, 2017, Devemaresponded in opposition [D.E. 25]. On May 9, 2017, Lee
replied [D .E. 26].
The court has reviewed Devema' s liED claim under the governing s_tandard. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,677-78 (2009); Bell Atl. Cor,p. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555-63, 570 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Ct. of A~~eals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010),
aff'd, 566 U.S. 30 (2012); Nemet Chevrolet. Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com. Inc., 591 F.3d 250,255
(4th Cir. 2009); Giarratano v. Johnso!1,521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008).

Devema' s liED claim against Lee fails to state a claim upon which relied can be granted.
Compare Compl. [D.E. 1] ,, 56--60, with Bratcher v. Phar. Prod. Dev.. Inc., 545 F. Supp. 2d 533,
544-45 (E.D.N.C. 2008); Efird v. Riley. 342 F. Supp. 2d 413,426-27 (M.D.N.C. 2004); Thomas
v. N. Telecom. Inc., 157F. Supp. 2d627, 634-36 (M.D.N.C. 2000); see also Waddlev. Sparks, 331
N.C. 73, 82,414 S.E.2d 22,27 (1992); Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437,452-53,276 S.E.2d 325,
335 (1981); Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co., 79 N.C. App. 483, 490, 340 S.E.2d 116, 121
(1986).
In sum, the court DISMISSES as moot defendants' motion to dismiss [D.E. 7] and GRANTS
Lee's motion to dismiss [D.E. 21]. Plaintiff's rr:ED claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim
on which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED. This k_ day of August 2017.

J£1s c. n~ rii

Chief United States District Judge