Smith v. Teledyne Industries, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 January 1984
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 83CV-6231-AA.
• Parties: James O. SMITH and Diane Smith, Plaintiffs, v. TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

578 F. Supp. 353

James O. SMITH and Diane Smith, Plaintiffs, v. TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 83CV-6231-AA.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D.

January 26, 1984.

Robert G. Morrison, Ann Arbor, Mich., for plaintiffs.

David A. York, Latnam, Watkins, Hedlund, Hunter & Lynch, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOINER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment and the plaintiff's Motion to Amend.

There has been no answer filed in this case and, therefore, the plaintiff may amend as a matter of right. The Court has reviewed the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and considered them with respect to the amended complaint.

The defendant argues that the action, which is basically for breach of an employment contract, is controlled by Ohio law and under Ohio law should be dismissed as failing to state a claim. The defendant further seeks summary judgment based upon materials introduced outside of the pleadings in connection with the motion.

Counts II and III of the amended complaint are pled as contract counts. The Court is persuaded that Ohio law applies to these two counts since the contract was made and performed in Ohio. See Structural Dynamics Research Corp. v. Engineering Mechanics Research Corp., 401 F.Supp. 1102 (E.D.Mich.1975).

In Ohio, employment contracts for an indefinite term are terminable at will unless the parties provide otherwise. Henkel v. Education Research Council, 45 Ohio St.2d 249, 344 N.E.2d 118 (1976). A Court of Appeals in Ohio upheld a claim that the parties had provided otherwise based on documents provided by the employer outlining employment terms and conditions. Hedrick v. Center for Comprehensive Alcoholism Treatment, 7 Ohio App.3d 211, 454 N.E.2d 1343 (1982) (per curiam). In Hedrick the plaintiff had pled breach of implied contract and promissory estoppel and the court held that dismissal for failure to state a claim was improper.

Based upon Henkel and Hedrick, it appears that Ohio may recognize the claims pled in Counts II and III and, therefore, the motion to dismiss is denied as to these claims. The motion for summary judgment is also denied without prejudice as to these claims.

Counts I, IV and V are pled in tort. In Sexton v. Ryder Truck Rental, 413 Mich. 406, 320 N.W.2d 843 (1982), Michigan abandoned the lex loci delicti rule in favor of a case by case approach:

We presently adopt no extant methodology outright but hold that when two residents, or two corporations doing business in the state, or any combination thereof, are involved in an accident in another state, the forum will apply its own law.

Id. at 413, 320 N.W.2d 843. Smith v. Pierpont, 123 Mich.App. 33, 333 N.W.2d 165 (1983), used the concurring opinion in Sexton to apply the law of the forum in a medical malpractice action brought by a Michigan plaintiff against an out-of-state defendant for an injury occurring out-of-state. The rule used in Smith v. Pierpont is that the forum will apply its own law in an action for tort brought by a Michigan plaintiff unless there was a superior interest on behalf of a foreign state that called for the application of its law in order to reach a just result.

The Court is of the opinion that Michigan would apply its own law to the claims for defamation and the claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress contained in Counts IV and V.

To state a claim for defamation the plaintiff must allege facts of publication, the substance of the statement and the connection to the plaintiff, if ambiguous. MacGriff v. Van Antwerp, 327 Mich. 200, 41 N.W.2d 524 (1950); Purcell v. Wolverine Pentronix, 44 Mich.App. 416, 205 N.W.2d 504 (1973). The allegations in this case lack the requisite specificity. Therefore, Count IV is dismissed unless the plaintiff files an amendment within 30 days of the date of this order.

Count V of the complaint is for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. As a preliminary matter, there is no indication that Michigan recognizes a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Restatement (Second) of Torts says that liability has been found for intentional infliction of emotional distress "only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id. at § 46 comment c (1965). The conduct alleged in this case is not extreme and outrageous as defined by the Restatement. Therefore, Count V of the first amended complaint is dismissed. Michigan permits plaintiffs to recover for mental...