Pebles v. Hiam et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting dfts' 6 Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings ; pltf's first and second causes of action are dismissed with leave to amend within 45 days by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12

MARY KAY PEBLES, Personal
Representative for the Estate of John H.
Pebles, deceased, and on behalf of MARY
KAY PEBLES and the ESTATE OF
JOHN H. PEBLES,

15

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(C)
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Plaintiff,

13
14

CASE NO. C12-0054-RSM

v.
CASEY HIAM, an individual; and CITY
OF BELLEVUE,

16
Defendants.
17
18

I. INTRODUCTION
19
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants’ motion for judgment on the
20
pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). See Dkt. #6. For the reasons set forth below,
21
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(C) MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS - 1

1

II. DISCUSSION

2 A. Background
3

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on July 7, 2009, Bellevue Police Officer Casey Hiam

4 confronted John H. Pebles, who was intoxicated and carrying a box cutter. Dkt. #2, Ex. 1
5 (“Complaint”), ¶ 3.1 Mr. Pebles sliced his own wrist and began walking toward Officer Hiam.
6 Id. at ¶ 3.2. Officer Hiam responded by firing his pistol and shooting Mr. Pebles. Two bullets
7 entered Mr. Pebles from the front and two bullets entered Mr. Pebles from the back. Id. at ¶3.3.
8 One of the bullets struck Mr. Pebles in the heart and killed him. Id.
9

Mary Kay Pebles, on behalf of Mr. Pebles’s estate and herself, pleads three causes of

10 action. First, she brings a claim against Officer Hiam and the City of Bellevue under a theory of
11 negligence. See Complaint, ¶4.2 (“Defendants … negligently and proximately caused injuries to
12 and ultimately the death of Mr. John Pebles. Any negligence on part [sic] of Defendant Hiam is
13 imputed to Defendant City of Bellevue under a theory of respondeat superior.”). Second, Ms.
14 Pebles alleges that the City of Bellevue was independently negligent in its employment, hiring,
15 supervision, and training of Defendant Hiam. Id. at ¶5.2 & 5.3 (“Defendant City of Bellevue
16 was negligent in its employment, hiring, supervision and training of Defendant Hiam” and
17 “Defendant City of Bellevue’s negligence was the proximate cause of the death of John H.
18 Pebles and resulted in the damages alleged herein.”). Ms. Pebles’s third cause of action arises
19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is not at issue here. Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings
20 as to Ms. Pebles’s first and second causes of action.
21 B. Standard
22

“After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party

23 may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The standard governing a Rule
24
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(C) MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS - 2

1 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that governing a Rule
2 12(b)(6) motion. Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir.1989);
3 McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988). In considering a Rule
4 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient
5 facts to state a claim for relief which is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
6 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is
7 facially plausible if the plaintiff has pled “factual content that allows the court to draw the
8 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
9 Twombly, 550 U.S. 556). In making this assessment, the Court accepts all facts alleged in the
10 complaint as true, and makes all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
11 Baker v. Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations
12 omitted); Fajardo v. County of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir.1999). The Court is not,
13 however, bound to accept the plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While
14 detailed factual allegations are not necessary, the plaintiff must provide more than “labels and
15 conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
16 at 555.
17 C. Analysis
18

Plaintiff argues that because she originally filed the action in state court, where only

19 notice pleading is required, she should not be held to the higher federal pleading standard
20 required under Iqbal and Twombly. “It is well-settled that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
21 apply in federal court, irrespective of the source of the subject matter jurisdiction, and
22 irrespective of whether the substantive law at issue is state or federal.” Kearns v. Ford Motor
23 Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, Fed.R.Civ.P.
24 81(c)(1) explicitly provides that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “apply to a civil action
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(C) MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS - 3

1 after it is removed from a state court.” While the Court understands Plaintiff’s plight in being
2 required to comply with disparate pleading standards in state versus federal court, this action has
3 now been removed and the federal rules apply.
4

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for negligence on the

5 part of Defendant Hiam or the City of Bellevue. The Court agrees. To state a claim for
6 negligence, Ms. Pebles must allege that: (1) Defendants owed Mr. Pebles a duty (2) Defendants
7 breached that duty; (3) injury resulted; and (4) the claimed breach was the proximate cause of the
8 injury. Hansen v. Friend, 118 Wn.2d 476, 478 (1992). Here, with respect to her first cause of
9 action against Officer Hiam and the City of Bellevue, Plaintiff adequately alleges proximate
10 cause and damages. However, Plaintiff fails to allege that Mr. Hiam owed Mr. Pebles a duty, nor
11 does she articulate how that duty was breached. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (the court is not
12 bound to accept legal conclusions as true). With respect to Plaintiff’s negligence claim against
13 the City of Bellevue, Plaintiff altogether fails to plead “factual content that allows the court to
14 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
15 Twombly, 550 U.S. 556). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
16 granted.
17

Where a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, “leave to amend should be

18 granted unless the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the
19 challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well
20 Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff will be given leave to amend.
21
22

III. CONCLUSION
The Court, having considered Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff’s response thereto, the reply,

23 and the remainder of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS:
24
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(C) MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS - 4

1

(1)

2

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action are hereby dismissed with leave

3

to amend within forty five days of the date of this Order. If an amended complaint is not

4

timely filed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action with

5

prejudice.

6

(2)

7

record.

8

Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. #6) is hereby

The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of

DATED: June 27, 2012.

9
10
11
12

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(C) MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS - 5