Carter et al v. Watonga Hospital Trust Authority et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 28 Motion to Dismiss; denying 35 Defendant Medstone Group, LLC's Motion for Partial Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint; denying 36 Defendant Richard S. Carter, M.D.'s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; denying 26 Joint Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 4/28/11. (lg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TERESA G. CARTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WATONGA HOSPITAL TRUST
AUTHORITY; et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-10-1168-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant Watonga Hospital until their termination.
Asserting that the terminations were in violation of various laws, Plaintiffs brought the
present action. Defendants seek dismissal, arguing Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for
relief. In particular, Defendants argue that the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint
are insufficient to demonstrate plausible claims.
Defendants’ request for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6)
requires the Court to examine the “specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether
they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d
1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Bell Atl.Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007),
and Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007)). “[T]he mere metaphysical possibility
that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is
insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a

reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.” Ridge at Red Hawk,
L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1247 (10th Cir. 2007).
After review of the arguments raised by Defendants and the allegations of the Second
Amended Complaint, the Court finds Defendants’ motions must be denied. While Plaintiffs’
allegations are somewhat sparse in places, they do set forth sufficient facts to notify
Defendants of the nature of the claims. The allegations presented by Plaintiffs are adequate
to allow Defendants to prepare a response and have fair notice of the claims alleged against
them. To the extent Defendants argue certain claims are barred as a matter of law, the Court
agrees with Plaintiffs that additional factual development is necessary before a final ruling
can be made on those claims.
For the reasons set out more fully herein, the Joint Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 26);
the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 28); Defendant Medstone Group, LLC’s Motion for Partial
Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 35), and Defendant Richard S. Carter,
M.D.’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 36) are DENIED.
Defendants shall file their Answers within 20 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2011.

2