Bell v. Novick Transfer Co.

Nature of the Case

This was a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Facts

Bell’s (P) tort action in a truck accident was removed to federal court. Bell, a minor, was injured when the car he was riding in was hit by a tractor trailer. Novick Transfer Co. (D) and Parsons (D1) owned the truck which was operated by Coburn (D2).The complaint, or as it is called in Maryland the declaration, alleged the basic facts of the situation including a statement that an agent of Novick drove a truck negligently such that it hit the car in which Bell was riding resulting in personal injuries.

The removal was accomplished under 28 U.S.C. 1441 and 1446. The complaint alleged that there was no contributory negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Defendants argued that under the Maryland procedural rules the complaint could not stand as it failed to allege a specific act of negligence that resulted in injury to Bell. The complaint did list his injuries and the damages and claimed they were caused by Coburn’s negligence.

Issues

  1. Is a complaint which alleges only that the defendant negligently drove a truck and injured the plaintiff sufficient under Rule 8?
  2. Must federal courts observe state well pleaded rules when a case is removed to federal court?

Holding and Rule of Law

  1. Yes. FRCP 8 requires only a short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
  2. No. Federal courts need not observe state well pleaded rules when a case is removed to federal court.

Rule 8 only requires a short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. This complaint meets that requirement. This action was originally filed in Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City but was removed to federal court. Even though it originated under state substantive law, federal courts are required to observe federal procedural rules.

After removal, the FRCP applies and not the laws of the State of Maryland. A complaint which alleges only that a defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle and thereby injured the plaintiff is sufficient under Rule 8. The use of a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definitive statement is not proper when the information that the defendant seeks may be obtained under Rule 33 or by discovery procedure.

Disposition

Motion denied.


Related posts: