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.

Boyd v. Jacobs Project Management Co.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

September 29, 2017

NORETTA F. BOYD, Plaintiff,
v.
JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY THE WISHARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT FACILITY “THE NEW WISHARD PROJECT”, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS [DOCKET NOS. 34 AND 52]

          SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE.

         In 2014, Plaintiff pro se Noretta F. Boyd (“Boyd”) sued her former employer Keystone Construction alleging various harms arising from Boyd's work for Keystone in 2013 as a project manager on the construction of a new hospital. Boyd v. Keystone Construction, et al., No. 1:14-cv-119-WTL-MJD. That case settled and was closed on the Court's docket on January 11, 2016. Id., Dkt. 139.

         This lawsuit arises from the same facts. This time Boyd sues the owner of the new hospital, the Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County (“HHC”), and Jacobs Project Management Company (“Jacobs”) (together, “Defendants”), a project- management contractor on the construction project, which contracted certain work on the project to Keystone Construction.

         Before the Court are HHC's and Jacobs's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 34 (HHC), Dkt. 52 (Jacobs). Boyd and Defendants raise a host of issues and arguments in their briefing. Not all of them are relevant or require our consideration. In fact, most of them, we need not decide, because the impact of a few clear-cut legal rules dictates that Boyd's claims be dismissed. And because there is nothing Boyd could do to fix these legal problems, her claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

         The main problem with Boyd's lawsuit is that it came too late. Boyd believes that, by filing her earlier lawsuit against Keystone, or by the mistakes and misconduct of defense counsel and this Court, she is able to avoid dismissal for lateness. This is not correct.

         Standard of Decision

         “A pleading that states a claim to 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); Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2014). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “test[s] the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” Triad Assocs., Inc. v. Chi. Hous. Auth., 892 F.2d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996). To survive dismissal,

a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, (2009). Factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading stage, but “allegations in the form of legal conclusions are insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 694 F.3d 873, 885 (7th Cir.2012) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

Adams, 742 F.3d at 728.

         Where, as here, the deadline for amending a complaint as of right has passed, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B), further amendment requires leave of court or the defendants' consent. Id. at (a)(2). “Although leave to file a[n] . . . amended complaint should be granted liberally, a district court may deny leave for several reasons including . . . futility of amendment.” Dubicz v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 377 F.3d 787, 792 (7th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted).

         “While complaints typically do not address affirmative defenses, the statute of limitations may be raised in a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint itself set forth every necessary to satisfy” the limitations defense “because the relevant dates are set forth unambiguously in the complaint.” Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotations and citation omitted); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007) (“Whether a particular ground for opposing a claim may be the basis for dismissal for failure to state a claim depends on whether the allegations in the complaint suffice to establish that ground, not on the nature of the ground in the abstract.”).

         Analysis

         Boyd seeks to hold Defendants liable in Count (I) for discharge in violation of public policy, discharge in violation of Indiana Code § 22-5-3-3, and discharge in violation of Indiana Code § 5-11-5.5-2 et seq.; in Count (II) for “intentional . . . interfer[e]nce with an economic advantage”; in Count (III) for libel and defamation per se; in Count (IV) for invasion of privacy and false light; in Count (V) for “conspiracy agains[t] rights [18] U.S.C. [§] 241; and in Count (VI) for race, age, and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11, 246, and Executive Order 13, 673.

         I. Boyd's Claims Under Counts (I), (II), (III), and (IV) Are ...


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.