Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 03-2390, SECTION: E, 5
January 21, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendants (hereinafter collectively "State Farm") filed a motion TO dismiss pursuant to Fed. P. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) The court heard oral argument on January 7, 2004. After oral argument the court granted State Farm's motion to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 as to plaintiff Jim Moore Insurance Agency, Inc., and took the motion to dismiss the remaining causes of action under consideration.
Moore conceded chat the agency could, not maintain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress under either Louisiana or Illinois law.
BACKGROUND
This dispute arises out of a 1932 agency contract (AA4) between the James Moore Insurance Agency, Inc., and State Farm. In 1989, the agency contract: was amended expressly to add James Moore, Jr., individually, as a party to the contract. Also since 1982, Moore's licensed staff employees have operated under a Clerical Employee Agreement. In 1999, State Farm requested that Moore personally, his agency, and Bettye Candies, a staff member licensed by the State of Louisiana to sell insurance, sign a "Licensed Staff Agreement" ("LSA") which, in effect, significantly altered the parties respective rights and obligations pursuant to the AA4. Moore and Candies signed the agreement with a reservation of their contractual rights under the original AA4 agreement.
State Farm rejected the LSA with the reservation of rights and Moore and Candies refused to sign without the reservation. State Farm initially responsed by terminating Candies' Clerical Employment Agreement, resulting in significant financial loss and inconvenience to the Moore agency. Curing the following years, Moore alleges that State Farm took a number of actions vis-a-vis Moore's agency which were punitive and were intended to damage his business and coerce Moore into signing the LSA. Moore alleges that State Farm breached the AA4 agency agreement and attempted to put his agency out of business when he refused to compromise his contractual rights. Moore further alleges that State Farm's motive is its wish to totally control his agency and employees and to deprive Moore of his retirement benefits, and that State Farm's tactics have been intentional and purposeful.
ANALYSIS
Dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pre. rule 12(b)(6) is proper only if the pleadings on their face reveal beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief, or if an affirmative defense or other bar to relief appears on the face of the compliant. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 76 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80(1957; Garrett v. Commonwealth Mortg. Corp. of America, 938 F.2d 591, 594 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, the Court must assume that the allegations in plaintiff's complaint are true, and must resolve any doubt regarding the sufficiency. of favor.Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n., 987 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, a plaintiff must plead specific facts, not mere conclusional allegations, to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000). The court may review the documents attached to the motion to dismiss, e.g., the contracts in issue, where the complaint refers to the documents and they are central to the claim. Id. at 498-99. Kane Enterprises v. MacGregor (USA Inc., CA No. 32-30432 (2/27/03)).
The original AA4, the amended AA4 and the LSA are attached to plaintiffs' original complaint. Plaintiffs' allege the following causes of action against State Farm:
Count 1: Tortious interference with business relations and wrongful termination of the Fortis appointment.
Count 2: Intentional infliction of emotional distress under Louisiana law.
Count 3: Intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois law.
Count 4: Breach of contract, loss of income and goodwill.
Count 5: Breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Count 6: Wrongful restriction on performance of contract.
Count 7: Intentional interference with prospective economic and business advantage under Illinois law.
Count 6: Intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective contractual relations.
Count 9: Wrongful termination of policyholders.
Count 10: Misrepresentation, fraud in the inducement and fraud in the factum.
Count 11: Violation of Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
State Farm's arguments for dismissal of all counts are arguments that plaintiffs have not proven or cannot prove their claims on the merits. Plaintiffs complaint, on its face, has stated claims sufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Whether, after discovery, any of the claims can survive a motion for summary judgment is a question for another day.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that State Farm's motion to dismiss Counts and 3 as to plaintiff Jim Moore Insurance Agency, Inc., is GRANTED, and its notion to dismiss as to all other claims is DENIED.