Smith v. Allstate Insurance Company

Full title: GREGORY SMITH, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Dec 6, 2007

No. 1:07-cv-00720-JCH/RHS (D.N.M. Dec. 6, 2007)

Opinion

No. 1:07-cv-00720-JCH/RHS.

December 6, 2007

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6)

JUDITH HERRERA, District Judge

This matter comes before the court on defendant Allstate Insurance Company's (hereinafter "Allstate") Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)[3]. In addition, the court has considered plaintiff Gregory Smith's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [6] and the defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Filed August 2, 2007. [12]. For the reasons stated below, the court finds that defendant Allstate's motion is not well taken and will be denied.

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, that "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" is a defense to a claim for relief in any pleading. A court may dismiss a cause of action under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim only if it appears beyond a doubt that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 811 (1993) (citation omitted). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must assume all well-pleaded facts, but not conclusory allegations, to be true, and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of a plaintiff. See Housing Auth. Of the Kaw Tribe v. City of Ponca, 952 F.2d 1183, 1187 (10^th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 912 (1992); Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc., 144 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10^th Cir. 1998). The issue in reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint is not whether a plaintiff will prevail ultimately, but whether a plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence to support his or her claim. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

These deferential rules, however do not allow a court to assume that a plaintiff "can prove facts that [the plaintiff] has not alleged." See Associated Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). The rules also do not require a court to accept legal conclusions or unwarranted inferences. See United States v. Fisher, 38 F.3d 1144, 1147 (10^th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

Defendant Allstate moves for dismissal on the following grounds: 1) the discrimination claim should be dismissed because plaintiff has not alleged each of the essential elements of his claim; 2) the contractual claim should be dismissed because the plaintiff does not allege a contractual relationship, either express or implied, between himself and the defendant; and 3) the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing must be denied because there is no contractual relationship.

The plaintiff responds arguing that the rules of pleading are to be liberally construed, and mere technicalities should not preclude the consideration of a case on its merits. (Citation omitted). Plaintiff also says the pleading requirements are that plaintiff make a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. (Citation omitted).

To be deemed adequate at the pleading stage, a complaint need not use particular words nor demonstrate that plaintiff will prevail on the merits, but need only provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-13 (2002) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)). The Tenth Circuit has held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that the pleadings give a defendant notice of the nature of the claims against him. Morse v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 154 F.3d 1124, 1127 (10^th Cir. 1998). Complaints need not spell out every element of a legal theory; that's the big difference between notice and code pleading. Hemenway v. Peabody Coal Co., 159 F.3d 255, 261 (7^th Cir. 1998).

Defendant Allstate argues the discrimination claim is defectively pled because plaintiff does not plead that he was otherwise qualified for the position he sought, or that he was denied the position solely because of his disability. However the Complaint alleges at paragraph 17 that plaintiff "could satisfactorily perform his job with proper medication and accommodation, but was not hired because of his disability/serious medical condition." While plaintiff does not use the precise words "otherwise qualified for the position sought" or that he was denied the position "solely because of his disability," a fair reading of the complaint would give defendant Allstate adequate notice of the plaintiff's claim. Thus, although the complaint could be more artfully drafted, it appears that the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion.

Defendant Allstate argues the contract claim is defectively pled because plaintiff has not alleged an express or implied contract existed between the parties. The facts alleged in the complaint are that plaintiff was contacted by George Mardini, Allstate's Human Resources Representative, who told plaintiff he was impressed by his interview and scheduled him for a pre-employment test. (Complaint, para. 8). Plaintiff started to take the test but experienced great difficulty concentrating due to his Obsessive Compulsive Disorder; he completed the test and did not receive a passing grade. (Complaint, para. 9). Plaintiff contacted Mardini and told him he had difficulty with the test because of his serious medical condition/disability (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). After plaintiff disclosed his request for accommodation, Mardini said he would waive the testing requirement if he submitted documentation from his physician, and assured plaintiff that the tests were not work related and if he submitted his documentation, "everything would be ok." (Complaint, para. 10). Plaintiff alleges that he submitted the documentation and formally requested medical accommodation. (Complaint, para. 12). Plaintiff alleges that thereafter, he was contacted by Mardini and told that his documentation was not sufficient and the pre-employment test would not be waived, and Mardini reneged on his agreement to waive the pre-employment test if plaintiff submitted a letter from his physician. (Complaint, para. 13). The court notes that while these facts are rather thin, for pleading purposes, they are sufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion.

Because the court denies the motion to dismiss the contract claim, the court will also deny at this time the motion to dismiss the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant Allstate's Motion to dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is denied.