Martinez v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Amparo Martinez. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/10/2017) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
AMPARO MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff-counterdefendant,
VS.
PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION,
Defendant-counterplaintiff.
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3043-D
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff-counterdefendant Amparo Martinez’s (“Martinez’s”) January 11, 2017 second Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant-counterplaintiff Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation’s (“Pilgrim’s
Pride’s”) counterclaim for breach of contract is denied for at least the following reason.1
Pilgrim’s Pride alleges that, as an employee of Pilgrim’s Pride, Martinez was a participant
in the Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation Partner Protection Plan Agreement (“Plan”). 1st Am. Countercl.
¶ 2. After she was injured, she elected to receive “Premium Benefits” under the Plan by signing the
Election Form. Id. at ¶ 5. In exchange for such “Premium Benefits,” Martinez agreed to waive her
right to sue Pilgrim’s Pride, and agreed that her only remedy would be the Premium Benefits that
she is eligible to receive under the Plan, id. at ¶ 4, which Pilgrim’s Pride alleges it has paid in full,
id. at ¶ 6 (Pilgrim’s Pride “has fully performed its obligations to provide Premium Benefits pursuant
to the terms of the Plan and the Election Form.”). But despite executing the Election Form and
1
Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written opinion”
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[] issued by the
court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.” It has been written,
however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in
an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.
receiving Premium Benefits, Martinez filed this lawsuit asserting claims of negligence that are
subject to the release and waiver provision in the Election Form. Id. at ¶ 7. Pilgrim’s Pride alleges
that Martinez’s breach has caused various forms of damages, including the Premium Benefits to
which she would not otherwise have been entitled. Id. at ¶ 8 (“By filing suit despite the release and
waiver, [Martinez] has breached the agreement, and said breach has proximately caused damages
to [Pilgrim’s Pride] in the form of premium benefits paid to [Martinez] . . . ”).
The elements of a claim for breach of contract under Texas law are “(1) the existence of a
valid contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance of duties under the contract, (3) defendants’ breach of the
contract, and (4) damages to plaintiff resulting from the breach.” Orthoflex, Inc. v. ThermoTek, Inc.,
983 F.Supp.2d 866, 872 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (Fitzwater, C.J.), appeal docketed, No. 16-11381 (5th Cir.
Sept. 16, 2016) (citation omitted). Pilgrim’s Pride has plausibly pleaded (1) the existence of a valid
contract (i.e., the Plan); (2) that Pilgrim’s Pride performed under the Plan by paying Premium
Benefits; (3) that Martinez breached the Plan by suing Pilgrim’s Pride despite executing the Election
Form that includes the release and waiver; and (4) that Pilgrim’s Pride was damaged by paying
Premium Benefits to which Martinez would not have been entitled had she not agreed to waive her
right to sue Pilgrim’s Pride and agreed that her only remedy would be the Premium Benefits.
-2-
Because Pilgrim’s Pride has pleaded a plausible counterclaim for breach of contract,
Martinez’s motion to dismiss is denied.2
SO ORDERED.
March 10, 2017.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
The court suggests no views on the other arguments made in the parties’ briefing. This
decision is limited to whether Pilgrim’s Pride has pleaded a plausible counterclaim for breach of
contract on the basis set out in this memorandum opinion and order.
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?