Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05131/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05131-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolynn Hayes
Plaintiff
Innovative Candy Concepts, LLC.
Defendant
The Hammer Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

CAROLYNN HAYES PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5131

THE HAMMER CORPORATION d/b/a

INNOVATIVE CANDY CONCEPTS, LLC DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 7th day of August, 2006, comes on for

consideration Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Outrage Claim

(document #4), and from said motion, and the response thereto, the

Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges breach of contract and

outrage claims stemming from her termination at a job with

defendant. Defendant now moves to dismiss the outrage claim,

pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.

2. It is axiomatic that a complaint should not be dismissed

for failure to state a claim “unless it appears beyond doubt that

the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief.” Krentz v. Robertson Fire

Protection District, 228 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2000). The complaint

must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and

factual allegations taken as true. It has been said that “as a

practical matter, a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is likely to be

granted only in the unusual case in which a plaintiff includes

Case 5:06-cv-05131-JLH Document 10 Filed 08/07/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

allegations that show on the face of the complaint that there is

some insuperable bar to relief.” Id. (citations omitted).

3. The Court believes that the case at bar is one of those

unusual cases. Two of the touchstones of the tort of outrage

under Arkansas law are that the conduct in question be “beyond all

possible bounds of decency, and . . . utterly intolerable in a

civilized society,” and that the resulting emotional distress be

“so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure

it.” Crawford County v. Jones, --- S.W.3d ---, 2006 WL 649986

(2006).

The basis of the outrage claim, as set forth in the

Complaint, is 

* that Armand Hammer, defendant’s president, wrote a

letter on behalf of the plaintiff setting forth the level of her

annual salary and benefits, knowing that the letter was to be used

to secure a loan for a new house, considerably more expensive than

her previous one; and

* that six months later Hammer fired plaintiff without

cause or explanation, knowing that such termination would cause

her severe emotional distress.

There is simply no way that this conduct rises to the

extremely high level required by Arkansas law. The Court,

therefore, finds that defendant’s motion should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss

Case 5:06-cv-05131-JLH Document 10 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

Outrage Claim (document #4) is granted, and plaintiff’s claim for

outrage is hereby dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05131-JLH Document 10 Filed 08/07/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>