Moss v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Companies et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 17 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Signed by District Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/29/2011. (tmg)

-DSC Jackie James Moss v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Companies et al

Doc. 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:10-cv-400-FDW-DSC JACKIE JAMES MOSS, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., NATIONWIDE LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA, NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE CO., and NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Nationwide Mutual Life Insurance Company and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).1 (Doc. No. 17). Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege sufficient factual allegations, neither of racial animus or intent to discriminate nor how such animus interfered with a contractual interest possessed by Plaintiff, to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Doc. No. 18). See, e.g., Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 456 F.3d 427, 434 (4th Cir. 2006). Defendants' Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. After considering the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint and the controlling law, the Court believes that determination of the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants should be deferred until the next dispositive stage of litigation. See Flue-Cured Tobacco Co-op.

Stabilization Corp. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 857 F. Supp. 1137, 1145 (M.D.N.C. 1994) ("This

Defendants Nationwide Assurance Company and Nationwide Life Insurance Company challenge the Court's personal jurisdiction over them. (Answer ¶¶ 5-6, Third Aff. Def.).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

claim can be adjudicated more accurately after the parties have developed the factual record."); Initial Scheduling Order, 3:07-MC-47 (Doc. No. 2) at § 3(c)(2) ("[T]he Court may elect to defer ruling on issues raised in Rule 12 and similar motions until the close of discovery"). The Court therefore DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: March 29, 2011

2