Brown v. Home Depot USA Inc

Filing 21

ORDER granting 6 defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 2/6/2013. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SHANNON TOBEY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-12-972-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, and Motion for a More Definite
Statement, filed September 21, 2012. On October 11, 2012, plaintiff filed his response, and on
October 18, 2012, defendant filed its reply.
Regarding the standard for determining whether to dismiss a claim pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the United States Supreme Court has held:
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. 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. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that
are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the
line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Further,
“where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not shown - that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Id. at 679 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, “[a] pleading that offers labels

and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does
a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. at
678 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Finally, “[a] court reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint presumes all of plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and construes them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
Having carefully reviewed plaintiff’s Amended Petition, the Court finds plaintiff has not set
forth sufficient factual allegations to state any claim for relief. To the extent that plaintiff is
asserting a negligence1 claim against defendant, the Court finds that plaintiff has not set forth
sufficient factual allegations that defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care under Oklahoma law. To
the extent that plaintiff is asserting a claim based upon some violation of state and federal
employment laws, the Court finds that other than making the conclusory allegation that defendant
violated “employment laws both Federal and State,” Amended Petition at ¶ 4, plaintiff has set forth
absolutely no factual allegations to support any alleged violation of state and federal employment
laws. Finally, to the extent that plaintiff is asserting a claim based upon employment discrimination
and/or harassment, the Court finds that in his Amended Petition, plaintiff simply makes conclusory
allegations of harassment and discrimination with no factual allegations to support said conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s Amended Petition should be dismissed pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court, therefore, GRANTS defendant’s Motion to

1

The elements of a negligence claim are (1) a duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff, (2)
defendant’s breach of that duty, and (3) injury to plaintiff caused by defendant’s breach of that duty.
See Lowery v. Echostar Satellite Corp, 160 P.3d 959, 964 (Okla. 2007).
2

Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted [docket no. 6] and
DISMISSES this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2013.

3