Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00837/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00837-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Factory Mutual Insurance Company,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Discount Waste Services, LLC; Muebleria 

Del Sol, Inc., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00837-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court are Defendant Discount Waste Services, LLC’s Motion to 

Dismiss Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be 

Granted (“Motion”) (Doc. 22), the Response, and the Reply. Defendant’s Motion will be 

denied. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Factory Mutual Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows in its 

First Amendment Complaint for Damages and Jury Demand (“Amended Complaint”) 

(Doc. 20). Defendant Discount Waste Services, LLC (“DWS”) operates a waste 

management company offering waste removal and recycling services in the Phoenix, 

Arizona area. (Doc. 20 ¶ 8.) On April 26, 2011, a DWS agent or employee driving a 

DWS truck collected paper-based material from Defendant Muebleria Del Sol, Inc.’s 

(“Del Sol”) facility at Del Sol’s request. (Id. ¶ 10.) DWS then dumped the paper-based 

material at the east end of the Phoenix recycling facility operated by Bio-Pappel 

Case 2:13-cv-00837-JJT Document 26 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

International, Inc. (“Bio-Pappel”). (Id.) Immediately thereafter, a fire was observed at 

the east end of the Bio-Pappel facility, “in the exact area where the [m]aterial was 

dumped.” (Id.) The fire then spread, causing damage, and Plaintiff paid Bio-Pappel over 

$750,000 pursuant to an insurance policy for the type of losses caused by the fire. (Id. 

¶¶ 10-11.) 

According to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, “[a]part from the [m]aterial [from Del 

Sol that was dumped by DWS] and the DWS truck and driver, there was no other person, 

equipment or item in the area where the [f]ire originated which could have caused or 

ignited a fire.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Further, “the [f]ire occurred either because the [m]aterial was 

already smouldering and/or on fire when DWS collected the [m]aterial from Del Sol and 

dumped it at the [Bio-Pappel facility], or because sparks were generated when the DWS 

truck driver dragged the hatch and/or back of his truck on the pavement of the [BioPappel facility] in an attempt to dislodge the [m]aterial from his truck, which ignited the 

[m]aterial.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges, among other duties, a duty by DWS not to dump 

smouldering, burning, or otherwise hazardous material at Bio-Pappel’s facility, and a 

duty on Del Sol’s part not to allow such hazardous material to be removed from its 

property and dumped at Bio-Pappel’s facility. (Id. ¶ 13.) The Amended Complaint 

likewise alleges breaches of Defendants’ duties and damages proximately resulting from 

those breaches of duty. (Id. ¶ 15.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth a standard of “notice pleading.” 

Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). To state a claim for relief 

under Rule 8, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what 

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This “short and 

plain statement” must also be “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

Case 2:13-cv-00837-JJT Document 26 Filed 08/02/13 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

678 (2009). A claim is plausible if it contains sufficient factual matter to permit a 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged; “[t]he 

plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement.’” Id. “Determining 

whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that 

requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 

679. 

 A proper complaint must at least “allege sufficient facts to state the elements of 

[the relevant] claim,” Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1122 (9th 

Cir. 2008), but it need not contain detailed factual allegations. Clemens v. 

DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008). All of the plaintiff’s 

plausible factual allegations are accepted as true and the pleadings are construed in a light 

most favorable to the plaintiff. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(citation omitted). 

III. ANALYSIS 

 To state a claim for negligence under Arizona law, a plaintiff must allege facts 

supporting: (1) a duty on the part of the defendant to conform to a particular standard of 

care; (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; (3) that the breach caused the resulting 

injury; and (4) actual damages. Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 143, 150 P.3d 228, 230 

(2007). Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a factual basis for each of these elements of a 

negligence claim. First, Plaintiff alleges that Del Sol should have refrained from sending 

hazardous materials to the Bio-Pappel facility, and that DWS should have refrained from 

dumping such materials at Bio-Pappel, as both knew or should have known of the 

unreasonable risk of fire attributable to the dumping of smouldering, burning, or 

otherwise hazardous materials. (Doc. 20 ¶ 13.) Plaintiff further alleges breaches of duty, 

including the failure to inspect and the dumping of material that was allegedly burning or 

otherwise hazardous. (Id.) And Plaintiff contends that those alleged breaches of duty 

caused a fire at the Bio-Pappel facility, for which Plaintiff had to pay over $75,000 as 

Case 2:13-cv-00837-JJT Document 26 Filed 08/02/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Bio-Pappel’s insurance provider. Importantly, the Amended Complaint specifies that, 

save DWS’ and Del Sol’s agents and their property, there was nobody and nothing near 

where the fire began that could have caused a fire. (Id. ¶ 10.) 

DWS’ objections to Plaintiff’s complaint do not merit dismissal of the Amended 

Complaint. Plaintiffs often make allegations in pleadings based on what they are 

“informed and believe”—they have no discovery based upon which to provide more 

definite information. Further, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d), plaintiffs are 

permitted to plead inconsistent legal theories and factual allegations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(d); see also Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank v. Am. Sur. Co., 347 F.2d 18, 23 (5th Cir. 1965) 

(“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require consistency of pleadings.”); 

Gross v. Met. Life. Ins. Co., N.Y., N.Y, No. 12-CV-2478H(JMA), 2013 WL 1628138, at 

*3 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2013). Even if Plaintiff has posited conflicting allegations, 

“inconsistent allegations are simply not a basis for striking the pleading.” PAE Gov’t 

Servs., Inc. v. MPRI, Inc., 514 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has pled what is in 

its knowledge at this early stage of litigation, and in doing so has provided “more than a 

sheer possibility” of negligence on Defendant’s part. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff 

has proffered a plausible claim to relief and has sufficiently notified DWS and Del Sol of 

the claims against them and the bases for those claims. Perhaps Plaintiff will be wholly 

unable to prove its case. That, however, is a concern for another day. The Amended 

Complaint satisfies the pleading standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendant Discount Waste Services, 

LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which 

Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. 22). 

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00837-JJT Document 26 Filed 08/02/13 Page 4 of 4