Faustino Reyes Lizama v. Oleksandr Levchenko, et al.

Summary

The court denied defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings in a diversity personal-injury action arising from a truck backing accident. The court held that the negligence per se allegations were adequately pleaded and that the answer did not establish contributory negligence as a matter of law, but struck allegations concerning negligent hiring, retention, entrustment, and training.

Holdings

1. The court may strike immaterial allegations from the complaint under Rule 12(f)(1), and it struck all assertions of negligence in hiring, retention, entrustment, and training because plaintiff disclaimed any present intent to assert those claims and the allegations lacked factual support.
2. The negligence-per-se claim was adequately pleaded because the complaint's reference to the accident location as a parking lot satisfied federal notice and plausibility pleading standards; whether the location qualifies as a highway with unrestricted public access is a factual matter to be proved later.
3. Defendants were not entitled to judgment on the pleadings based on factual allegations in the answer because plaintiff was not required to respond to the answer, and those allegations were therefore considered denied or avoided.

Questions Presented

1. Whether allegations concerning negligent hiring, retention, entrustment, and training should remain in the complaint when plaintiff disclaimed any present intent to assert those claims and the complaint lacked factual support.
2. Whether the negligence-per-se claim was legally insufficient because the complaint did not allege facts establishing that the parking lot was a highway with unrestricted public access for vehicular travel.
3. Whether the defendants were entitled to judgment on the pleadings based on factual allegations in their answer allegedly establishing plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Disposition

other