Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_10-cv-01051/USCOURTS-almd-1_10-cv-01051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Torts to Land

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DIALYSIS CLINIC, INC., et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. 1:10-cv-1051

v. )

)

CITY OF DOTHAN, et al., ) (WO- DO NOT PUBLISH)

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the Defendant Bay Line Railroad, LLC’s (“Bay

Line”) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. #

11). For the following reasons, the motion is due to be DENIED.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332, as the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000. The parties do not assert that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them,

and there is no dispute that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Therefore, for

the purposes of adjudging a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court will accept as true

all well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff. See Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008); Am. United

Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1057 (11th Cir. 2007).

Case 1:10-cv-01051-WKW-CSC Document 28 Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 4
While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only that a complaint

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief,” as a general matter, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the

plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129

S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). The plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions,

and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly,

550 U.S. at 559. It is not sufficient that the pleadings merely leave “open the possibility

that a plaintiff might later establish some set of undisclosed facts to support recovery.”

Id. at 561 (internal quotation and alteration omitted).

If, as in this case, a party presents matters outside the pleadings for the Court’s

consideration on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court may either exclude the

evidence or construe the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(d).

III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (“Dialysis”) owned and operated a dialysis clinic in

Dothan, Alabama. On March 28, 2009, flood waters entered the clinic and damaged the

clinic’s expensive dialysis equipment. Dialysis contends that the flood was caused by a

2

Case 1:10-cv-01051-WKW-CSC Document 28 Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 4
defectively designed culvert and drainage system designed by defendant Northstar and

installed by defendants Bay Line and Chatahoochee Bay Railroad Inc. (“Chatahoochee”).

Dialysis claims that Bay Line and Chatahoochee sought to widen the railroad line that

runs above the culvert. When the railroads widened the line, they installed a pipe to

lengthen the culvert accordingly. According to Dialysis, Bay Line and Chatahoochee

installed a pipe that was too small to handle the volume of water draining into the culvert.

When heavy rains ensued, the water wasn’t able to enter the culvert and flooded the

Dialysis clinic.

Dialysis sued Bay Line and Chatahoochee, alleging that the railroads had a duty to

use reasonable care when installing the culvert, and that they breached that duty by

installing an undersized pipe to direct water into the culvert. Dialysis seeks recovery on

both negligence and wantonness theories of liability.

Bay Line has moved to dismiss the claims against it on the basis that

Chatahoochee, and not Bay Line, owned the railroad line that runs above the culvert. Bay

Line contends that at no time did it ever own, maintain, repair, or modify the tracks

located above the culvert in question here. In support of its motion, Bay Line submits the

affidavit of Allen D. Swindall, Bay Line’s Assistant Vice President.

IV. DISCUSSION

Because Bay Line submitted evidence to support its motion to dismiss, the Court

must either exclude the evidence or construe the motion as one made pursuant to Rule 56.

3

Case 1:10-cv-01051-WKW-CSC Document 28 Filed 05/09/11 Page 3 of 4
Because the parties have not had adequate time to complete discovery in this case, and

therefore Dialysis had not had adequate opportunity to contradict Bay Line’s factual

assertions, the Court will not construe this motion as a motion for summary judgment.

Therefore, the Iqbal/Twombly standard applies here.

As stated above, the Court must take as true all well-pleaded factual allegations

contained in the complaint. The complaint clearly alleges that Bay Line constructed,

designed, and maintained the culvert and widened the railroad line that runs over the

culvert. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 26, 36). Because the Court must take these allegations as true, Bay

Line cannot establish as a matter of law that they owed no duty to Dialysis. It is hereby

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (Doc. # 11) is DENIED.

Done this the 9 day of May, 2011.

th

/s/ Mark E. Fuller

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:10-cv-01051-WKW-CSC Document 28 Filed 05/09/11 Page 4 of 4