Therrien v. Inline Plastics et al
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER finding as moot 12 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 17 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Plaintiff shall file her Amended Complaint within 14 days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 5/5/2011. (las)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
MILISSA ANN THERRIEN,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
AMEND AND MOOTING MOTION
TO DISMISS
vs.
INLINE PLASTICS, a foreign corp., and
DAN MARTEL, an individual,
Case No. 2:10-CV-786 TS
Defendants.
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains seven claims for relief. Defendants move to dismiss
the First, Second and Third Causes of Action for failure to state a claim against the
individual defendant because supervisors and other employees may not be held personally
liable under Title VII. Defendants also move to dismiss the Fourth, Fifth and Six Causes
of Action as barred by the exclusivity provision of the Utah Workers’ Compensation Act.
Plaintiff responds that her first, second and third causes of action are against the
corporate defendant only and that the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation
statute do not bar her claims because she alleges intentional torts. However, Plaintiff also
1
moves to amend her complaint to cure any deficiencies. Defendants do not oppose the
request to amend the complaint.
The Court will grant the unopposed Motion to Amend. Because there will be an
Amended Complaint, the current Motion to Dismiss is moot. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Docket No. 17) is GRANTED and
Plaintiff shall file her Amended Complaint within 14 days of the entry of this order. It is
further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 12) is MOOT
DATED May 5, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
Chief United States District Judge
2
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?