Jones v. BWAY Corp.

• Docket Number: 2:22-cv-02683-JPM-tmp
• Decision Date: 01 June 2023
• Parties: CAROLYN ANN JONES, Plaintiff, v. BWAY CORPORATION, d/b/a MAUSER PACKING SOLUTIONS and RANDY DUERKSEN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

1

CAROLYN ANN JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
BWAY CORPORATION, d/b/a MAUSER PACKING SOLUTIONS and RANDY DUERKSEN, Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-02683-JPM-tmp

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

June 1, 2023

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR BATTERY

JON P. McCALLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant BWAY Corporation's (“BWAY”) and Defendant Randy Duerksen's (“Mr. Duerksen”) (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim for Battery, filed on October 6, 2022. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff Carolyn Ann Jones filed a Response on December 9, 2022. (ECF No. 13.) Defendants filed a Reply on December 13, 2022. (ECF No. 17.)

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a Tennessee citizen. (ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 4.) BWAY is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 8). Mr. Duerksen is a natural citizen of Tennessee. (Id. ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff is a former employee of BWAY. (ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Duerksen, “a plant manager,” inappropriately touched her buttocks without her consent. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) Plaintiff alleges that she was fired because she filed a worker's compensation claim and

2

because she reported Mr. Duerksen's inappropriate touching. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiff brings her claims under the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § § 4-21-101, et seq. and “the Tennessee common law claim for workers' compensation retaliation.” (Id. ¶¶ 2, 32.) Plaintiff also alleges that Mr. Duerksen committed the tort of battery. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff seeks front pay, back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief as remedies. (Id. ¶ 34.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows dismissal of a complaint that “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” A Rule 12(b)(6) motion permits the “defendant to test whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief even if everything alleged in the complaint is true.” Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F.2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Nishiyama v. Dickson Cnty., 814 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1987)). A motion to dismiss only tests whether the plaintiff has pled a cognizable claim and allows the court to dismiss meritless cases which would waste judicial resources and result in unnecessary discovery. Brown v. City of Memphis, 440 F.Supp.2d 868, 872 (W.D. Tenn. 2006).

When evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must determine whether the complaint alleges “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). If a court decides that the claim is not plausible, the case may be dismissed at the pleading stage. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “[A] formulaic recitation of the...