Louis v. Mercy Health

Filing 51

ORDER denying 37 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 10/16/15. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HOLLY LOUIS, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MERCY HEALTH, a foreign
corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case Number CIV-14-1358-C
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant alleging state tort claims of intentional infliction
of emotional distress and medical negligence. According to Plaintiff, Defendant operates a
hospital in Oklahoma City which provided care to her in July of 2014. Plaintiff believes the
care she received at that facility fell below the appropriate standard and therefore gave rise to
the claims brought in this action.
Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and/or Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim must be
dismissed as it fails to comply with a state statute, specifically, 12 Okla. Stat. § 682(b). That
statute states:
B. No suit or claim of any nature shall be brought against any officer,
director or shareholder for the debt or liability of a corporation of which he or she
is an officer, director or shareholder, until judgment is obtained therefor against
the corporation and execution thereon returned unsatisfied. This provision
includes, but is not limited to, claims based on vicarious liability and alter ego.
Provided, nothing herein prohibits a suit or claim against an officer, director or
shareholder for their own conduct, act or contractual obligation arising out of or
in connection with their direct involvement in the same or related transaction or
occurrence.

Defendant argues that because Plaintiff has failed to obtain a judgment against the subsidiary
entity – Mercy Hospital Oklahoma City, Inc., – she cannot proceed with her claim against
Defendant and therefore dismissal is required. Plaintiff argues the statute is inapplicable,
because she is not seeking to impose alter ego liability on Defendant.
After consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that § 682 has no
applicability in the present action. As Plaintiff notes, she has brought her claim directly against
Defendant. She is not seeking to impose liability on that entity as an alter ego or parent of
Mercy Oklahoma City, or on the theory that Defendant was somehow negligent in its
supervision of Mercy Oklahoma City. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was directly
responsible for the injuries she incurred.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 37) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2015.

2