McCourt v. Gatski Commercial Real Estate Services
2:14-cv-01911
D. Nev.May 5, 2015Background
- plaintiff McCourt (Title VII civil rights employment action) alleges sexual harassment by supervisor Beets and retaliation via termination by Gatski; governing entities include Accord as a non-party employer-lease entity.
- plaintiff worked as leasing administrative assistant for Gatski from Aug 2011 to Mar 2013; Acccord leased plaintiff and employed her at the time.
- plaintiff filed EEOC discrimination charges (sex) against Gatski and Accord with right-to-sue letters; no party to Accord’s motion.
- Gatski moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement concerning the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
- plaintiff attached EEOC statements as exhibits; Rule 10(c) adopts exhibits by reference for evaluating Rule 8 plausibility.
- court held plaintiff’s complaint and incorporated exhibits meet Rule 8; intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is plausibly pleaded.
- court denied Gatski’s motion for partial dismissal or a more definite statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IFP claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress survives Rule 12(b)(6) | McCourt argues exhibits support severity and plausibility | Gatski contends no factual basis in complaint to show extreme conduct | Yes; claim plausibly alleged under Rule 8 |
| Whether Rule 8 pleading standard is satisfied by the complaint and exhibits | Exhibits incorporated by reference meet Rule 8 sufficiency | Complaint alone is deficient without more factual detail | Yes; exhibits render the pleading sufficient |
| Whether a motion for a more definite statement was warranted | Rule 10(c) adoption of exhibits supports clarity | Statement remains vague | No; motion denied as to be appropriate relief (denied) |
| Whether the court should dismiss the intentional infliction claim or require amendment | Claim meets pleading standards | Claim fails to plead extreme and outrageous conduct with sufficient detail | Denied; claim survives as pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (pleading must plead plausible claims rather than mere recitals of elements)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (Supreme Court 2009) (two-step approach; plausibility standard after 12(b)(6))
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (allegations must provide underlying facts to give fair notice and plausibly show entitlement to relief)