Wright v. RGU Corporation

Filing 21

ORDER Granting Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages Claim. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. on August 30, 2024. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

EDDIE WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
RGU CORPORATION, et al.
Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-02310-SHM-cgc

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM
This

is

a

common

law

negligence

case

automobile accident in Memphis, Tennessee.

arising

from

an

On March 11, 2024,

Plaintiff Eddie Wright sued Defendants Mohammed Alhassan1 and RGU
Corporation

(“RGU”)

in

the

Tennessee.

(ECF No. 1-2.)

Circuit

Court

of

Shelby

County,

The case was removed to this court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on May 13, 2024.

(ECF No. 1.)

Before

the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Punitive
Damages Claim (the “Motion”), brought jointly on May 15, 2024.
(ECF No. 9.)

Plaintiff, now proceeding pro se, has not responded

in the time allowed by the local rules.

1

L. R. Civ. P. 12.1(b).

Plaintiff’s complaint refers to “Alhassan Mohammed.” (ECF No.
1-2 at 3.) Defendants have clarified that Defendant’s name is, in fact,
“Mohammed Alhassan.” (ECF No. 1 at 1.)

For the reasons below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Punitive Damages Claim is GRANTED.
I.

Background

Plaintiff alleges the following.

(ECF No. 1-2.)

On March

19, 2023, Plaintiff was driving on Interstate 55 in Memphis,
Tennessee.

(Id. at ¶ 11.)

Defendant Alhassan, driving a truck

owned by and registered to Defendant RGU, suddenly tried to merge
into Plaintiff’s lane.

(Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.)

Defendant Alhassan

inadvertently hit the concrete divider, causing Alhassan to stop
abruptly and causing Plaintiff to crash into the rear of the truck
Alhassan was driving.

(Id. at ¶ 15.)

Defendant Alhassan failed to exercise reasonable care while
driving, maintain a safe lookout, or maintain proper control of
his truck.

(Id. at ¶ 22.)

As a result, Plaintiff suffered serious

injuries requiring medical attention.

(Id. at ¶ 23.)

Defendant

RGU is liable for Defendant Alhassan’s actions under the theory of
respondeat superior and for failing to properly hire, train, and
supervise its employees.

(Id. at ¶¶ at 25, 29.)

Defendant RGU

likewise failed to follow relevant governing rules, regulations,
and

policies.

(Id.

at

¶

34.)

Plaintiff

brings

claims

of

negligence and negligence per se as a result of Defendants’ “gross,
willful, and wanton negligence” and reckless conduct.
24-42.)

(Id. at ¶¶

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and any

other relief the Court deems equitable.
2

(Id. at 10-11.)

On May 15, 2024, Defendants filed separate answers.
Nos.

6,

7.)

In

their

respective

answers,

they

raise

(ECF
the

affirmative defenses of comparative fault; failure to state a claim
for punitive damages; and failure to state a claim for negligent
hiring, supervision, training, entrustment, and maintenance.
Nos. 6 at 4; 7 at 4.)

Defendant Alhassan has also raised the

affirmative defense of insufficient service of process.
7 at 4-5.)

(ECF

(ECF No.

Defendants filed the instant Motion on May 15, 2024,

contending that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient
factual allegations to support his claim for punitive damages.
(ECF No. 9-1 at 2.)
II.

Jurisdiction and Choice of Law

This Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff is a Tennessee citizen.

(ECF No. 1-2 at ¶ 1.)

Defendant

RGU is incorporated in, and has its principal place of business
in, Ohio.

(Id. at 3; ECF No. 6 at ¶ 3.)

citizen of California.

Defendant Alhassan is a

(ECF No. 1-2 at ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff seeks damages for past and future medical treatment
resulting from his “serious, painful, and permanent injuries.”
(Id.

at

¶¶ 44-45.)

He

also

seeks

damages

for

physical

and

emotional pain and suffering; loss of enjoyment of life; and fright
and shock; in an amount not to exceed $ 1 million.

(Id. at 9-10.)

Because the parties are citizens of different states and the
damages

alleged

exceed

$75,000,
3

the

Court

has

diversity

jurisdiction.

Rosen v. Chrysler Corp., 205 F.3d 918, 920-21 (6th

Cir. 2000) (“In diversity cases, the general rule is that the
amount claimed by a plaintiff in his complaint determines the
amount in controversy, unless it appears to a legal certainty that
the claim is for less than the jurisdictional amount.”)
State substantive law applies to state law claims brought in
federal court.

Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938).

Where there is no dispute that a certain state’s substantive law
applies, the court will not conduct a choice-of-law analysis sua
sponte.

See GBJ Corp. v. E. Ohio Paving Co., 139 F.3d 1080, 1085

(6th Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff filed the instant suit in Tennessee

court, alleging common law negligence claims under state law. (ECF
No. 1-2 at 4-8.)

Defendants concede the application of Tennessee

law.

9-1 at 2.)

(ECF No.

The Court will apply Tennessee

substantive law.
III. Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows dismissal of
a complaint that “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The defendant bears the

burden of showing that the plaintiff has not stated a claim for
relief.

Wesley v. Campbell, 779 F.3d 421, 428 (6th Cir. 2015);

Mixon v. Trott Law, P.C., No. 19-1366, 2019 WL 4943761, at *2 (6th
Cir. 2019) (holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving
all affirmative defenses, including the failure to state a claim
4

under 12(b)(6)).

The defendant’s burden is not an evidentiary

burden, but a “burden of explanation.”
F.Supp.3d 732, 740 (M.D. Tenn. 2021).

ARJN #3 v. Cooper, 517
The defendant “bears the

burden of explaining -- with whatever degree of thoroughness is
required under the circumstances -- why dismissal is appropriate
for failure to state a claim.”
After the defendant meets its burden of explanation, a court
must determine whether the complaint alleges “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)).

A claim is plausible on its face if “the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id.
A

court

must

construe

the

complaint

in

the

light

most

favorable to the plaintiff and draw all reasonable inferences in
his favor. Golf Vill. N., LLC v. City of Powell, 14 F.4th 611, 617
(6th Cir. 2021) (citing Cahoo v. SAS Analytics, Inc., 912 F.3d
887, 897 (6th Cir. 2019)).
legal

conclusions

or

The Court “need not accept as true

unwarranted

factual

inferences.”

(internal citations, quotation marks omitted).
IV.

Analysis

5

Id.

“To prevail on a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must
show, by clear and convincing evidence, that a defendant acted
intentionally, fraudulently, maliciously, or recklessly.”

Sanford

v. Waugh & Co., Inc., 328 S.W.3d 836, 848 (Tenn. 2010).

Because

punitive damages “are intended to punish a defendant, to deter him
from committing acts of a similar nature, and to make a public
example of him,” they are only available in cases involving “the
most egregious of wrongs.”

Id.

at 849 (internal citations,

quotation marks omitted); see e.g., McLemore ex rel. McLemore v.
Elizabethton Med. Invs., Ltd. P’ship, 389 S.W.3d 764, 771-72 (Tenn.
Ct. App. 2012) (upholding award of punitive damages where medical
malpractice at a nursing home led to a patient’s death); Hatfield
v.

Allenbrooke

Nursing

and

Rehab.

Ctr.,

LLC,

No.

W2017-00957-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 3740565, at *52-53 (Ct. App. Tenn.
Aug. 6, 2018) (upholding punitive damages award where nursing home
patients experienced “outrageous lack of care”); Scutt v. McLean,
App. No. 86-193-II, 1987 WL 12047 at *2 (Ct. App. Tenn. June 10,
1987)

(upholding

a

punitive

damages

award

where

defendant

exhibited “willful and reckless disregard” for public safety by
driving while intoxicated).
That Plaintiff pleads negligence claims does not preclude him
from seeking punitive damages.

See Doe 1 ex. rel. Doe 1 v. Roman

Catholic Diocese of Nashville, 154 S.W. 3d 22, 38 (Tenn. 2005)
(explaining

that

“recklessness

is
6

typically

a

criterion

for

determining whether punitive damages are warranted in negligence
cases”).
that

However, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts showing

Defendants’

behavior

went

beyond

“ordinary

negligence”

because Defendants were “aware of, but consciously disregarded” a
“substantial and unjustifiable” risk. Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am.,
Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178, 206-07 (Court App. Tenn. 2018).
The facts of this case are similar to those in Marshall v.
Cintas Corp., Inc., 255 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Ct. App. Tenn. 2007).
There, the plaintiff sued a truck driver’s employer after a serious
car accident.

The Marshall court found that the plaintiff’s

allegations that defendant failed to adequately train its employee
“simply” did not rise to the level of egregious conduct necessary
to sustain a punitive damages claim, although Plaintiff described
defendant’s conduct as “willful and wanton.”

Id. at 76.

Here,

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Alhassan improperly merged
into Plaintiff’s lane and that Defendant RGU failed to train or
supervise

its

employees

do

not

support

the

inference

Defendants’ behavior was willful, wanton, or reckless.
1-2 at ¶¶ 24-42.)

that

(ECF No.

The allegation that Defendants’ actions were

“gross, willful, and wanton” is a bare legal conclusion unsupported
by facts.

(Id. at ¶¶ 24-42); Golf Vill. N., LLC, 14 F.4th at 617;

Pickens v. Dowdy, No. 17-2205-TMP, 2018 WL 3816915, at *1 (W.D.
Tenn. Aug. 9, 2018) (finding that evidence that defendant was using

7

her cellphone while driving was insufficient, as a matter of law,
to support a punitive damages claim).
The allegation that Plaintiff sustained serious injuries,
alone, is insufficient to show that Defendants ignored a risk of
such magnitude that they committed an egregious breach of the
standard of care.

Jones v. Wiseman, No. 2:18-cv-02197-SHL-dkv,

2019 WL 4060885, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. May 16, 2019) (rejecting the
argument that a jury could find that defendant was reckless simply
because

its

Plaintiff’s

actions
conclusory

caused

plaintiff’s

allegations

injury).

that

Because

Defendants

acted

willfully, wantonly, and recklessly do not support a plausible
claim for punitive damages, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
V.

Conclusion

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Punitive Damages
Claim is GRANTED.
So ordered this 30th day of August, 2024.

/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.muel H.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8