Anderson v. Intel Corp.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
PartiesCASSY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant.
Docket NumberCase No. 3:20-cv-02138-AC
Decision Date14 April 2021
OPINION AND ORDER

ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge:

Introduction

Plaintiff Cassy Anderson ("Anderson") sues Defendant Intel Corporation ("Intel") for negligence ("claim one"); violation of the State of Oregon's Employers' Liability Law ("ELL") under OR. REV. STAT. § 654.305 ("claim two"); violation of the ELL under OR. REV. STAT. § 654.310 ("claim three"); negligence per se under the Oregon Safe Employment Act ("OSEA") ("claim four"); and violation of premises liability ("claim five"). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6), Intel moves to dismiss claims one through four (Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 4 ("Mot.")). For the following reasons, Intel's motion is granted in part and denied in part.1

Factual Background

Anderson was working as an apprentice electrician for a subcontractor hired by Intel called EC Electric. (Complaint, ECF No. 1-1 ("Compl."), at ¶ 2.) On or about November 19, 2018, Anderson was injured while working at Intel's Ronler Acres Campus while performing maintenance work in the cleanroom on the upper floor of Intel's D1B building with her journeyman, Jerry Haley. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) At Intel's direction, EC Electric used the basement in the D1B building to store its equipment. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Anderson walked down to the basement, followed the designated walkway, and stepped on an approximately one-by-three-inch brass-colored pipe strap laying loose on the floor. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6.) When her right foot stepped on the pipe strap, it slid out from underneath her and she fell hard onto the walkway, striking her right hip and elbow on the concrete surface. (Compl. ¶ 4.) The surface was smooth, grey concrete with yellow diagonal lines painted on it, each line approximately two inches wide and spaced approximately one foot apart from each other, and most of it dusty. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Anderson described the basement as "busy" visually, with pipes, chains, and utilities overhead and on both sides of the walkway. (Compl. ¶ 5.)

Anderson fell near a designated "laydown" area where Intel directs workers from various trades, including EC Electric, to put their toolboxes, parts, and supplies. (Compl. ¶ 6.) After her fall, Anderson recognized the pipe strap she slipped on as a common one used throughout thefacility but different from the electrical-type fitting that EC Electric would have used. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Earlier that same morning, Anderson had been in the basement twice and had not seen the pipe strap on the floor. (Compl. ¶ 6.) She never saw Intel employees, known as "Blue Badges," monitor or inspect the basement for hazards, such as loose parts or supplies lying on the floor. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Workers from the various trades who used the basement and the laydown area, including EC Electric, had complained to Intel about the basement's poor lighting. (Compl. ¶ 7.) The area at which Anderson fell featured only some lighting and it provided minimal illumination. (Compl. ¶ 7.)

As a result of the fall, Anderson suffered a right hip labral tear, right hip pain, and a swollen and sore right elbow. (Compl. ¶ 9.) The right hip labral tear required Anderson to undergo surgery. (Compl. ¶ 10.) As a result of Anderson's injuries, she incurred medical, hospital, doctor, therapy, nursing, and rehabilitation expenses, and she requires further surgery to release the Psoas tendon in her right hip. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Anderson has incurred lost wages and will continue to incur lost wages and/or earning capacity in the future. (Compl. ¶ 11.)

Legal Standard

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). A court may grant a motion to dismiss "'based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged'" under a cognizable legal theory. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Cap. Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)).

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, acceptedas true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also CallerID4u, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1048, 1061 (9th Cir. 2018). "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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 678 (9th Cir. 2017). The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. When a plaintiff's complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, the plaintiff's complaint "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'" Id. at 557 (brackets omitted). The court must accept as true the allegations in the complaint and construe them in favor of the plaintiff. Teixeira, 873 F.3d at 678; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Snyder & Assocs. Acquisitions LLC v. United States, 859 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017).

Rule 8(a)(2) requires complaints in federal court consist of "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" The pleading standard under Rule 8 "does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). "[L]abels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. But a claim "may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of [necessary] facts is improbable," and the plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Id. at 556. Leave to amend should be given freely when justice so requires, unless the court determines the pleading could notpossibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2); Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990).

Oregon law governs Anderson's claims. See Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); Gee v. Tenneco, Inc., 615 F.2d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 1980) ("The task of a federal court in a diversity action is to approximate state law as closely as possible in order to make sure that vindication of the state right is without discrimination because of the federal forum."). When applying state law, a federal court is bound by the decisions of the state's highest court. Ticknor v. Choice Hotels Int'l., Inc., 265 F.3d 931, 939 (9th Cir. 2001). If there is no binding decision on a relevant issue of law, the federal court must apply the law as it believes the state's highest court would apply it. Id. In determining how a state's highest court would apply state law, the federal court may consider "intermediate appellate court decisions, decisions from other jurisdictions, statutes, treatises and restatements for guidance." Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., 840 F.3d 1016, 1023 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted).

Discussion
I. Anderson's Common-Law Negligence and Premises Liability Claims Are Not Duplicative

Anderson sues Intel in claim one for negligence and claim five for premises liability. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10.) Intel argues claims one and five are duplicative because Anderson bases the claims on Intel's status as the possessor of land and Anderson's status as an invitee. (Mot. at 5.) Intel argues that because Anderson invokes her status as an invitee in her premises liability claim, she may not proceed under a general negligence theory and the negligence claim should be dismissed as duplicative. (Mot. at 5-6.) Anderson responds that invoking her status as an invitee for her premises liability claim does not render her negligence claim duplicative and underRule 8(d)(3), because she may raise alternative claims of recovery. (Pl.'s Resp., ECF No. 6 ("Pl.'s Resp."), at 6.) Additionally, Anderson contends that she adequately pleads foreseeability. (Pl.'s Resp. at 6.)

For a successful common-law negligence claim, a plaintiff need allege only that the defendant's conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of harm. Groeneweg v. JELD-WEN, Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-01030-AA, 2020 WL 7265366, at *2 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 2020). However, if a plaintiff alleges a special relationship exists between herself and the defendant, "the test for ordinary negligence may not apply if a party invokes 'a status, a relationship, or a particular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant's duty.' . . . That is because 'the nature and scope of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff can be created, defined, or limited based on, among other things, the relationship between or status of the parties.'" Sloan on behalf of Est. of Sloan v. Providence Health Sys.-Oregon, 364 Or. 635, 644 (2019) (citations omitted). For example, under a premises liability claim when a plaintiff alleges she is an invitee and the defendant is a land possessor, the plaintiff must allege the defendant breached his duty "to protect [her] against those dangers that were known to the possessor, or about which the possessor should have known by the exercise of reasonable care." Cain v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 1273 (D. Or. 2011).

The court agrees with Anderson that a plaintiff may allege negligence and premises liability claims in the alternative. See Miller v. Goodyear Timer & Rubber Co., 434 F. Supp. 3d 877, 882 (D. Or. 2020) (recognizing that "[t]he Oregon Supreme Court has...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT