United States District Court, N.D. Alabama Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER [1]
STACI
G. CORNELIUS U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is
a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle
accident. Before the undersigned is the defendants’
motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for negligent
or wanton entrustment, hiring, training, supervision, and
retention pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 29). The plaintiff agrees
these claims are due to be dismissed. (Doc. 31). For the
reasons discussed below, the motion is due to be granted, and
the plaintiff’s claims for negligent or wanton
entrustment, hiring, training, supervision, and retention are
due to be dismissed with prejudice.
I.
Procedural History
Berdina
Hawes commenced this action against James Darrell Bailey and
Carnes Trucking Co., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama. (Doc. 1-1). The defendants removed the
action to this district court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. (Doc. 1).[2] Thereafter, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss certain of Hawes’ claims, including
those for negligent entrustment and negligent hiring,
supervision, and retention, on the ground the claims failed
to meet the federal pleading standard. (Doc. 5). Hawes
essentially conceded the pleading deficiencies. (Doc. 11).
The undersigned denied the defendants’ motion to
dismiss without prejudice and granted Hawes leave to amend
her complaint to address the pleading deficiencies identified
by the defendants. (Doc. 27).
In her
amended complaint, Hawes asserts claims for negligence,
wantonness, and agency against Bailey and claims for
negligent or wanton entrustment, hiring, training,
supervision, and retention, as well as a claim for respondeat
superior, against Carnes Trucking. (Doc. 28). The defendants
seek dismissal of Hawes’ claims for negligent or wanton
entrustment, hiring, training, supervision, and retention on
the ground these claims fail to meet the federal pleading
standard. (Doc. 29). Hawes’ agrees these claims are due
to be dismissed. (Doc. 31).
II.
Facts
Hawes
alleges that on or about January 30, 2017, she was driving a
2010 Dodge Charger northbound in the far right lane of
Montgomery Highway, approaching the intersection of Lorna
Road and Data Drive in Hoover, Alabama. (Doc. 28 at ¶
6). Bailey, a truck driver employed by Carnes Trucking, was
driving a 2016 Freightliner CA125 (the
“tractor-trailer”) northbound in the middle lane
of Montgomery Highway, approaching the same intersection.
(Id. at ¶ 6). Bailey made a right turn onto
Lorna Road across the right lane,
“colliding/sideswiping” Hawes’ vehicle in
the process and knocking it off the road and into the gutter.
(Id.). As a result of the accident, Hawes’
suffered physical and mental injuries for which she has
incurred medical expenses. (Id. at ¶ 10).
In
support of her negligent and wanton entrustment claim, Hawes
alleges Carnes Trucking knew or should have known Bailey was
not capable of responsibly operating the tractor-trailer on
account of his inexperience and/or history of negligence.
(Id. at ¶ 18). In support of her negligent and
wanton hiring, training, supervision, and retention claim,
Hawes alleges Carnes Trucking knew or should have known
Bailey was incompetent and/or inclined to be negligent.
(Id. at ¶ 24).
III.
Legal Standard
Rule
12(b)(6) must be considered against the backdrop of Rule
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 8(a)(2) “requires only ‘a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair
notice of what the … claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Rule 8 “does not
require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it
demands more than an unadorned, the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[L]abels and
conclusions,” “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action,” and “naked
assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement” are
insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
To
survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted brought pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
“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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “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.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556).
IV.
Discussion
Under
Alabama law, the torts of negligent or wanton entrustment,
hiring, training, supervision, and retention all require a
plaintiff to show an employer knew or should have known its
employee was incompetent. Buckentin v. SunTrust Mortg.
Corp., 928 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1288 (N.D. Ala. 2013)
(citing Britt v. USA Truck, Inc., 2007 WL 455027, *4
(M.D. Ala. 2007) (negligent or wanton entrustment and
negligent hiring, supervision, and retention); Armstrong
Bus. Servs. v. AmSouth Bank, 817 So. 2d 665, 682 (Ala.
2001) (negligent supervision); Bruck v. Jim Walter
Corp., 470 So. 2d 1141, 1144 (Ala. 1985) (negligent or
wanton entrustment); Brown v. Vanity Fair Mills,
Inc., 277 So. 2d 893, 895 (1973) (negligent hiring,
retention, and entrustment); Sanders Shoe Show,
Inc., 778 So. 2d 820, 824 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)
(negligent or wanton hiring and supervision)). Hawes’
amended complaint contains no facts to support her
allegations Carnes Trucking knew or should have known Bailey
was incompetent, inclined to be negligent, or not capable of
responsibly operating the tractor-trailer or her allegation
Bailey had a history of negligence. Hawes again essentially
concedes as much. (Doc. 31). Hawes has had one opportunity to
amend her complaint to address pleading deficiencies with
respect to her claims for negligent or wanton entrustment,
hiring, training, supervision, and retention. (Doc. 27).
Because her amended complaint does not correct these pleading
deficiencies, the claims in question are due to be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Bush v. J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A., 2016 WL 324993, at *9 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 27,
2016) (dismissing negligent or wanton training and
supervision claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) where amended
complaint was devoid of facts regarding what notice employer
had of employees alleged incompetency).
V.
...