SCOTT v. RAMA, INC.
1:13-cv-01750
S.D. Ind.Mar 16, 2015Background
- Scott was hired in 2006 as a Lube Tech by Rama; duties included checking fluids and later sweeping and light cleaning.
- Scott has a history of spinal problems; an August 2012 car accident exacerbated his condition.
- Scott alleges Rama terminated him after his physician restricted bending/sweeping; he sued Rama under the ADA and obtained a right-to-sue letter.
- Rama answered and asserted counterclaims for fraud (alleging Scott misrepresented his ability to perform job duties on his 2006 application) and abuse of process (alleging Scott’s ADA suit is frivolous/brought in bad faith).
- Rama relied on Scott’s later unemployment and SSDI applications (claiming disability) as evidence contradicting his 2006 statement of ability.
- Scott moved to dismiss Rama’s counterclaims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the court granted the motion and dismissed both counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rama pleaded actionable fraud based on Scott’s 2006 job-application statement that he could perform essential functions | Scott contends the 2006 statement was not a false statement of existing fact and that later disability filings do not prove fraud | Rama contends Scott’s later SSDI/unemployment filings saying he is disabled contradict his 2006 representation and show fraud | Dismissed — statement concerned future ability; Rama failed to allege a false representation of an existing fact necessary for fraud under Indiana law |
| Whether Rama pleaded abuse of process based on Scott’s ADA suit | Scott argues bringing an ADA claim is a proper use of process and motive alone is insufficient | Rama argues Scott prosecuted the ADA suit in bad faith and for illegitimate ends | Dismissed — Rama failed to allege use of an improper process; improper motive alone is insufficient to state abuse of process |
| Pleading standards applicable to the counterclaims (Rule 9(b) for fraud; plausibility under Iqbal/Twombly) | Scott argues fraud must meet Rule 9(b) particularity and all claims must meet Iqbal/Twombly plausibility | Rama asserted its fraud claim met 9(b) and that abuse of process is not subject to plausibility requirement | Court held Rule 9(b) issues irrelevant because substantive elements of fraud not pled; confirmed plausibility standard applies to all claims and rejected Rama’s assertion that abuse of process is exempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Pisciotta v. Old Nat. Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629 (7th Cir.) (pleading must raise right to relief above speculative level)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards and limits on conclusory allegations)
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (SSD claim not necessarily inconsistent with ADA claim)
- Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575 (7th Cir.) (facial plausibility discussion)
- Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud)
- Doe v. Howe Military Sch., 227 F.3d 981 (7th Cir.) (elements of actual fraud under Indiana law)
- Nat’l City Bank, Ind. v. Shortridge, 689 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind.) (abuse of process requires perversion of process to illegitimate ends)
- Reichhart v. City of New Haven, 674 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. Ct. App.) (abuse of process focuses first on whether process used was improper)