Boudreaux v. Quick Fast & in, LLC

DANIEL BOUDREAUX PLAINTIFFSTONETRUST COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF v. QUICK FAST AND IN A HURRY TRANSPORTATION, LLC,and WALTER E. FELLS DEFENDANTS

CAUSE NO. 1:15CV89-LG-RHW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION

August 24, 2015

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [45] filed by Quick Fast and In a Hurry Transportation, LLC. The plaintiff Daniel Boudreaux has filed a response in opposition to the Motion, and Quick has filed a reply. After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the record in this matter, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be granted, and Boudreaux's demand for punitive damages against Quick should be dismissed with prejudice.

FACTS

This lawsuit arose out a motor vehicle accident. The Complaint filed in this matter contains very few factual allegations, and the copy of the accident report attached to the Complaint is nearly illegible. However, it appears that both Boudreaux and Walter Fells were driving tractor trailers on a Mississippi highway when Boudreaux left the roadway, overcorrected, and overturned, partially blockingthe roadway. Fells, who was employed by Quick, attempted to avoid Boudreaux's vehicle, but he was unsuccessful, and part of his trailer struck the front of Boudreaux's tractor trailer. Boudreaux filed this lawsuit, alleging that Fells was driving at an excessive speed given the conditions of the road. All of the claims filed against Fells' employer, Quick, are based solely on vicarious liability. Boudreaux seeks past, present, and future medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. Quick filed the present Motion seeking dismissal of Boudreaux's claim for punitive damages.

DISCUSSION

"[A] motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is subject to the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Young v. City of Houston, 599 F. App'x 553, 554 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2008)). In order to survive a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Turner v. Pleasant, 663 F.3d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "This standard 'simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of' the necessary claims or elements." In re S. Scrap Material Co., LLC, 541 F.3d 584, 587 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

The Mississippi Court of Appeals has explained: "Mississippi law does not favor punitive damages; they are considered an extraordinary remedy and areallowed 'with caution and within narrow limits.'" Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Young, 120 So. 3d 992, 1013-14 (162) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Warren v. Derivaux, 996 So. 2d 729, 738 (127) (Miss. 2008)). Pursuant to statute, punitive damages can only be awarded when the plaintiff proves "by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant . . . acted with actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fraud." Id.; see also Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a). Under Mississippi law, a punitive damages claim cannot be based on vicarious liability. See Littlejohn v. Werner Enters., Inc., No. 1:14cv44-SA-DAS, 2015 WL 3484651, at *3 (N.D. Miss. June 2, 2015); Dinger v. Amer. Zurich Ins. Co., No. 3:13cv46-MPM-SAA, 2014 WL 580889, at *4 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 13, 2014); Roberts v. Ecuanic Exp., Inc., No. 2:12cv84-KS-MTP, 2012 WL 3052838, at *3 (S.D. Miss. July 25, 2012). Boudreaux has not alleged any actual malice, gross negligence, or wanton or reckless conduct on the part of Quick; he merely alleges that Quick was Fells' employer. Therefore, the Court finds that Boudreaux's punitive damages claim against Quick must be dismissed with prejudice.

C...