Morris v. Alderson

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS: Defendant Alderson's motion to dismiss 5 is GRANTED. Defendant Philomena Alderson is thus DISMISSEDas a defendant in this civil action. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 4/11/2013. (copy to counsel of record via CM/ECF)(rjs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
DAVID MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:13CV15
(STAMP)

PHILOMENA ALDERSON and
MARIA M. SAUNDERS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
I.

Procedural History

The plaintiff, David Morris, filed this civil action in the
Circuit Court of Wetzel County, requesting damages as the result
injuries that the plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of an
automobile accident in Monongalia County, West Virginia.

The

plaintiff

the

alleges

that

his

injuries

were

the

result

of

negligence of defendant Maria Saunders (“Saunders”) in the manner
that she was operating the vehicle in which she was traveling. The
complaint alleges that defendant Philomena Alderson (“Alderson”) is
the owner of the vehicle that was operated by Saunders at the time
of the collision.

The defendants timely removed this civil action

to this Court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441,
claiming diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Following removal of this action, defendant Alderson filed
this motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
dismiss.

The plaintiff has not responded to the motion to
For the reasons that follow, this Court finds that the

plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted against defendant Alderson.

As such, defendant Alderson’s

motion to dismiss is granted and she will be dismissed from this
civil action.
II.

Facts

The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that, on September 3,
2010, he was operating a 2007 Mack CL 700 tractor trailer, and was
traveling south on Interstate 79 in Morgantown, Monongalia County,
West Virginia.

Also at this time and place, defendant Saunders

operating a 2005 Volvo O owned by defendant Alderson, and was also
traveling south on Interstate 79.

The complaint alleges that at

this time and place, defendant Saunders “negligently, illegally,
and improperly operated” the vehicle owned by defendant Alderson,
causing a collision between her vehicle and the vehicle that the
plaintiff was operating.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that

the collision was the “direct and proximate result” of defendant
Saunders’ speed, failure to maintain control of the vehicle, and an
unsafe or prohibited lane change.

The plaintiff claims that he

suffered bodily injuries as a result of the collision and requests
damages as a result, as well as compensation for alleged mental
anguish, pain and suffering, diminished wages, future loss of
income, and loss of ability to enjoy life.

2

III.
A.

Applicable Law

Motion to Dismiss
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows

a defendant to raise the defense of “failure to state a claim upon
which

relief

can

be

granted”

as

a

motion

in

response

to

a

plaintiff’s complaint before filing a responsive pleading.
In assessing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept the factual allegations
contained in the complaint as true.

Advanced Health-Care Servs.,

Inc. v. Radford Cmty. Hosp., 910 F.2d 139, 143 (4th Cir. 1990).
Dismissal is appropriate only if “‘it appears to be a certainty
that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state
of facts which could be proven in support of its claim.’”

Id. at

143-44 (quoting Johnson v. Mueller, 415 F.2d 354, 355 (4th Cir.
1969)); see also Rogers v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 883 F.2d
324, 325 (4th Cir. 1989).
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) should be granted only in very limited circumstances, as
the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2) only mandate “a short and plain statement of a claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).

Still, to survive a motion to dismiss, the

complaint must demonstrate the grounds to entitlement to relief
with “more than labels and conclusions . . . factual allegations

3

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.”

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
IV.

A.

Discussion

Motion to Dismiss
Defendant Alderson argues that the plaintiff’s complaint

should be dismissed as to her because it does not state any
allegations of wrongdoing on her part, nor does it raise any
allegations which could result in her liability for any wrongdoing
of defendant Saunders.

This Court agrees.

As noted above, the plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the
automobile collision in question, and as a result, plaintiff’s
injuries, were directly and proximately caused by the negligence of
defendant Saunders.

The complaint does not allege that defendant

Alderson committed any wrongdoing in relation to the collision, or
even that she was present on the day of the collision.

Further,

the complaint does not allege that defendant Alderson is liable for
the actions of defendant Saunders through respondeat superior or
any other theory of vicarious liability.

In fact, the sole

allegation made against defendant Alderson in the plaintiff’s
complaint is that she was the owner of the car that defendant
Saunders was operating at the time of the collision.

Such an

allegation is insufficient to hold defendant Alderson liable for
the actions of defendant Saunders. See Price v. Halstead, syl. pt.
9, 355 S.E.2d 380 (W. Va. 1987).
motion to dismiss is granted.

4

As such, defendant Alderson’s

V.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, defendant Alderson’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED. Defendant Philomena Alderson is thus DISMISSED
as a defendant in this civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
DATED:

April 11, 2013

/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5