Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Myles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

May 5, 2015

DIANA D. MYLES, Individually and as, Plaintiff,
v.
DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, a foreign corporation; and WAYMOND JAMES, an individual, Defendants. Administrator of the Estate of Johnny Lee Myles and for and on behalf of all other parties entitled to recover for the wrongful death of Johnny Lee Myles, deceased

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

DEBRA M. BROWN, District Judge.

This automobile collision action is brought by Plaintiff Diana Myles, on behalf of herself and the Estate of Johnny Lee Myles, her late husband. Doc. #7 at ¶ 1. In her amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her husband was killed when his car was impacted by a commercial vehicle driven by Defendant Waymond James and owned by Defendant Domino's Pizza. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 32. Before the Court are Domino's Rule 12(b)(6): (1) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. #4; and (2) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Doc. #9.

I

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

As a general matter, "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). When a complaint falls short of this directive, a defendant may move to dismiss the claim for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In considering the interplay between Rule 8 and Rule 12, the United States Supreme Court has explained that:

To survive a motion to dismiss [for failure to state a claim], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations and punctuation omitted) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-58 (2007)). Under this standard, a "court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc. v. FNC, Inc., 634 F.3d 787, 803 n.44 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and punctuation omitted).

II

Factual Allegations and Procedural History

At approximately 9:48 p.m. on December 29, 2012, a vehicle driven by Johnny Lee Myles collided with a commercial vehicle owned by Defendant Domino's and driven by Defendant Waymond James. Doc. #7 at ¶ 6. The collision occurred when Johnny's vehicle entered the intersection of U.S. Highway 61 and Mississippi Highway 32, and James negligently failed to avoid Johnny's automobile. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 19, 34. At the time of the accident, James was employed by Domino's and was acting within the scope of such employment. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 35.

On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed this action against James and Domino's. Doc. #1. In her original complaint, Plaintiff alleged that James failed to follow an array of federal, state, and company standards and that such failures caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 13. Plaintiff further alleged that Domino's engaged in "wrongful and negligent conduct, " including conspiracy to violate, and aiding and abetting the violation of, federal and state safety laws. Id. at ¶¶ 16-17.

On September 2, 2014, Domino's filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Doc. #4. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B). Doc. #7. Plaintiff's amended complaint, which alleges that Domino's knew that James was "an incompetent driver, " id. at ¶ 39(b), asserts the same claims as her original complaint.

On October 5, 2014, Domino's filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Doc. #9. On October 17, 2014, Plaintiff responded in opposition to Domino's motion. Doc. #10. On October 29, 2014, James filed a Notice of Joinder, purporting to join and adopt ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.