Gonzales v. Ramey
2:25-cv-00159
| N.D. Ind. | Sep 18, 2025Background
- On August 19, 2023, defendant Charles L. Ramey, driving a commercial vehicle for Halvor Lines, collided with plaintiff Catherine D. Gonzales on I‑90 near Gary, Indiana; plaintiff alleges Ramey struck other vehicles before hitting her.
- Plaintiff sued in state court (Feb. 21, 2025) and amended her complaint (May 28, 2025) to add a punitive damages claim alleging willful and wanton misconduct; defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss/for judgment on the pleadings.
- Defendants seek dismissal of the punitive damages claim as alleging only ordinary negligence and judgment on the pleadings on an independent owner’s‑liability claim against Halvor Lines, arguing Ramey acted within the scope of employment.
- The magistrate judge applies Rule 12(b)(6)/12(c) standards and relevant Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court pleading principles (Twombly/Iqbal) when considering the motions.
- The court finds the complaint’s facts (notice of Ramey striking other vehicles; collision with Gonzales) and the remaining allegations are insufficient to infer gross negligence, malice, or conscious disregard required for punitive damages.
- Because punitive damages are dismissed, the court also enters judgment on the pleadings dismissing the separately pleaded owner’s‑liability cause of action against Halvor Lines as currently pled; negligence and respondeat superior claims remain pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of punitive damages claim | Alleged facts (Ramey striking other vehicles and admission of negligence) suffice to let a jury decide punitive damages | Complaint pleads only ordinary negligence; no facts showing malice, gross negligence, or conscious indifference | Dismissed without prejudice — allegations do not plausibly show willful/wanton misconduct |
| Independent owner’s‑liability claim against Halvor Lines | If punitive damages are alleged, an independent owner’s‑liability claim can proceed | No special circumstances alleged; Ramey acted within scope of employment so no separate owner’s cause of action | Judgment on the pleadings for Halvor Lines — owner’s‑liability claim dismissed as pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility standard to allegations of intent)
- Guise v. BWM Mortg., LLC, 377 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2004) (Rule 12(c) standard equals 12(b)(6))
- Buchanan‑Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2009) (view pleadings in light most favorable to nonmoving party on 12(c))
- N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of South Bend, 163 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 1998) (pleadings include complaint, answer, and attached exhibits)
- Westray v. Wright, 834 N.E.2d 173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (ordinary negligent acts like brief inattention insufficient for punitive damages)
- Wanke v. Lynn’s Transp. Co., 836 F. Supp. 578 (N.D. Ind. 1993) (lack of driving skill or traffic‑statute violations do not support punitive damages)