Macon v. Family Dollar Stores of MO, LLC
4:16-cv-00689
E.D. Mo.Apr 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Darrell Macon alleges he was assaulted inside a Family Dollar store in Jennings, Missouri on March 17, 2016, sustaining serious injuries (broken rib, head injury, loss of consciousness).
- Macon sued Family Dollar for negligence (Count I) and for willful, wanton, and malicious failure to act (seeking punitive damages) or, alternatively, reckless indifference (Count II).
- Macon alleges the store is in a high‑crime area with police called to the location at least 87 times in the prior 11 months and that the store had a panic button; he contends Family Dollar failed to promptly notify police when suspicious conduct began.
- Family Dollar removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss Count II for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The magistrate judge evaluated whether plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to support punitive damages (i.e., that defendant acted with complete indifference or conscious disregard) and granted the motion, dismissing Count II.
- The court ordered Family Dollar to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction given the dismissal of Count II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to support punitive damages for failure to act willfully/wantonly/maliciously | Macon alleges the store was in a known high‑crime area, had many prior police calls, and possessed a panic button; thus Defendant knew of a high probability of harm and acted with conscious disregard | Family Dollar argued Count II lacks factual allegations showing the heightened culpability required for punitive damages and should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) | Court dismissed Count II: allegations do not rise to the level of complete indifference or conscious disregard necessary for punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (requires factual allegations showing plausible entitlement to relief)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (courts accept complaint allegations as true at pleading stage)
- Aziz v. Jack in the Box, 477 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. Ct. App.) (business owner duty arises only under special facts/circumstances for third‑party criminal acts)
- Alack v. Vic Tanny Int'l of Missouri, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 330 (Mo. banc) (punitive damages require knowledge of high probability of harm; complete indifference/conscious disregard standard)
- Stojkovic v. Weller, 802 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. banc) (same punitive damages standard)
- Wilson v. Image Flooring, LLC, 400 S.W.3d 386 (Mo. Ct. App.) (plaintiff must plead factual basis for willful/wanton/malicious conduct)
- Litchfield v. May Dept. Stores Co., 845 S.W.2d 596 (Mo. Ct. App.) (affirming that negligence must be elevated by facts to justify exemplary damages)