Horton v. Murray Energy et al
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and otherwise taking under advisement 9 Motion to Dismiss Party; granting in part and otherwise taking under advisement 11 Motion to Dismiss Party. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from entry of this Order to file a Second Amended Complaint, by stipulation of the parties. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/5/12 (alt)
Kevin N. Anderson (0100)
Jason W. Hardin (8793)
FABIAN & CLENDENIN,
a Professional Corporation
215 South State Street, Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2323
Telephone:
(801) 531-8900
Facsimile:
(801) 596-2814
kanderson@fabianlaw.com
jhardin@fabianlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION, an
)
Ohio corporation; UTAHAMERICAN
)
ENERGY, INC., a Utah corporation;
)
ANDALEX RESOURCES, INC., a
)
Delaware corporation; AGAPITO
)
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado
corporation; Mike Hewlett General Manager )
)
of INTERMOUNTAIN POWER AGENCY
)
(IPA), a political subdivision of the State of
)
Utah; 10 unknown persons working for or
)
under the authority of INTERMOUNTAIN
)
POWER AGENCY; LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER )
)
(LADWP), a political subdivision of the
)
State of California; 10 unknown persons
)
working for or under the authority of LOS
)
ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER
)
AND POWER; GENWAL RESOURCES,
INC., an Ohio Corporation and JOHN DOES )
)
1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
MITCH HORTON,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
DEFENDANTS MURRAY ENERGY
CORPORATION, UTAHAMERICAN
ENERGY, INC., ANDALEX
RESOURCES, INC., GENWAL
RESOURCES, INC.,
INTERMOUNTAIN POWER
AGENCY, LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND
POWER, AND AGAPITO
ASSOCIATES, INC.’S RESPECTIVE
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Case No.: 2:11-cv-01147-DN
Judge David Nuffer
Defendants Intermountain Power Agency (“IPA”), Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power (“LADWP”), and General Manager of IPA’s (together “IPA Defendants”) Motion to
Dismiss (Docket No. 9); Defendants Murray Energy Corporation (“MEC”), UtahAmerican
Energy, Inc. (“UEI”), Andalex Resources, Inc. (“ARI”), and Genwal Resources, Inc.’s (“GRI”)
(collectively “Murray Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docket
No. 11); and Agapito Associates, Inc.’s (“Agapito”) F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
(Docket No. 14) were set for hearing before the District Judge David Nuffer on May 22, 2012.
Plaintiff was represented by Dusten L. Heugly and Daniel W. McKay of Heideman, McKay,
Heugly & Olsen. IPA Defendants and Murray Defendants were represented by Kevin N.
Anderson of Fabian & Clendenin. Agapito was represented by Dale J. Lambert and Sarah E.
Spencer. Prior to the hearing, the Court had reviewed the Parties’ respective memoranda in
support of and in opposition to the motions and had carefully reviewed the other applicable
pleadings and papers on file, and was fully advised in the premises.
At the hearing, the Court addressed the Professional Rescuer Doctrine defense raised by
the Murray Defendants and Agapito. The Court ruled that under current Utah law the
Professional Rescuer Doctrine defense does not apply in this case. The doctrine is limited to
professional rescuers. Fordham v. Oldroyd, 171 P.3d 411, 413 (Utah 2007); See also
Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 233 P.3d 546 (Utah App. 2010).
The Court addressed the Murray Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s First through Fifth
Causes of Action are barred by the Worker’s Compensation Act. Specifically, the Court
addressed whether Plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to meet the “intentional injury” exception to
the Worker’s Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision. The Court discussed Helf v.
2
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2009 UT 11, which holds that to meet the “intentional injury” exception a
plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating that defendants (1) intended to act; and (2) intended to
cause injury. Plaintiff argued the Amended Complaint sets forth sufficient facts to meet the
“intentional injury” exception. Specifically, he relied on paragraphs 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 71, 73,
86, 87, and 88 of his Amended Complaint. After considering Plaintiff’s arguments, and carefully
considering Utah case law as summarized in Helf, including the paragraphs from the Amended
Complaint cited by Plaintiff, the Court held that the allegations of Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint fail to meet the requirements for the “intentional injury” exception as defined in Helf.,
and that Plaintiff’s First through Fifth Causes of Action against his employer Genwal Resources,
Inc. are barred by the Worker’s Compensation Act.
Additionally, the Court ruled that the Worker’s Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy
provision applies to MEC, ARI, UEI, and GRI because the allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, as pled, establish that MEC, ARI, UEI and GRI were a single employing unit.
The Court granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days from entry of this Order for Plaintiff to
amend and restate his Amended Complaint. The Court reserved ruling on Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause
of Action – Section 1983 Violation – as to IPA, LADWP, MEC, UEI, ARI and GRI until after
Plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Complaint.
Finally, Plaintiff stipulated to dismissal of his Sixth Cause of Action as against Agapito.
Plaintiff also stipulated to dismissal of the Second Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium as to
all parties.
3
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.
Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 9) filed by IPA Defendants is taken under
advisement.
2.
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docket No. 11) filed by
Murray Defendants is GRANTED IN PART and otherwise taken under advisement.
3.
Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 14) filed by Agapito is GRANTED IN PART and
otherwise taken under advisement.
4.
Under Utah law, the Professional Rescuer Doctrine defense does not apply in this
case and is therefore rejected.
5.
Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Personal Injuries is dismissed without
prejudice as against MEC, UEI, ARI and GRI as barred by the Worker’s Compensation Act.
6.
Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium is hereby dismissed
with prejudice as to all Parties, by stipulation of the parties.
7.
Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous
Activities is dismissed without prejudice as to MEC, UEI, ARI and GRI as barred by the
Worker’s Compensation Act.
8.
Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Premises Liability is dismissed without
prejudice as to MEC, UEI, ARI and GRI as barred by the Worker’s Compensation Act.
9.
Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action for Infliction of Emotional Distress is dismissed
without prejudice as to MEC, UEI, ARI and GRI as barred by the Worker’s Compensation Act.
10.
Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Section 1983 Violation is dismissed with
4
prejudice as to Agapito.
11.
Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from entry of this Order to file a Second
Amended Complaint, by stipulation of the parties.
12.
The Court shall reserve ruling as to all other issues and claims, including, but not
limited to, Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Section 1983 Violation and applicability of the
subject statutes of limitation, until after Plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Complaint.
Dated July 5, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
5
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?