Cory Anderson v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, et al.

Summary

The court denied Cory Anderson’s motion to strike exhibits and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It dismissed with prejudice Anderson’s negligence, gross negligence, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against the Wal-Mart defendants, as well as all claims against the City of Pearland and a police sergeant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court ordered Anderson to show cause why his remaining defamation, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims should not be dismissed as frivolous.

Holdings

1. The court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss when they are referred to in the complaint and central to the plaintiff's claims; the challenged exhibits met that standard, so the motion to strike was denied.
2. Anderson failed to state a negligence claim because he pleaded only conclusory assertions and did not allege a legally cognizable physical injury distinct from physical manifestations of emotional distress.
3. Anderson failed to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
4. Because Anderson failed to state an ordinary negligence claim, he necessarily failed to state a gross-negligence claim.
5. Anderson failed to state his Section 1983 claims against Webb and the City because the First Amended Complaint did not plead facts supporting all required elements, including facts permitting a reasonable inference of municipal deliberate indifference, an official policy, or a constitutional violation caused by that policy or custom.
6. The court denied leave to amend because the evidence properly before it showed that amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could consider the challenged exhibits because they were referred to in or central to the First Amended Complaint.
2. Whether Anderson plausibly pleaded negligence against the Wal-Mart defendants.
3. Whether Anderson plausibly pleaded intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress against the Wal-Mart defendants.
4. Whether Anderson plausibly pleaded gross negligence against the Wal-Mart defendants.
5. Whether Anderson plausibly pleaded the required elements of his Section 1983 claims against Webb and the City of Pearland.
6. Whether leave to amend should be granted.

Disposition

other