United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, District Judge.
I. NATURE OF THE MOTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
Before the Court is a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (upon which relief can be granted), or in the alternative, 12(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement by Defendants, Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, Kathy Wilber, Michael Joseph Fargnoli and Michael Joshua Fargnoli. Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed eight days prior to the date set for hearing on the motion. No memorandum in opposition to the pending motion, which was set for hearing on June 10, 2015, was submitted. District Courts may grant an unopposed motion as long as the motion has merit. Accordingly, and for the reasons enumerated below,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is GRANTED, in part. Plaintiff's federal claim arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is hereby dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual circumstances and basis for the instant action are largely unclear. A related action, Thomas D'Aquin and Bruce Chia Wang v. Mutual of Omaha, et al., Civil Action No. 15-634, was dismissed by this Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff here, Bruce Wang ("Wang"), refiled his action against Mutual of Omaha, Michael Joseph Fargnoli, Michael Joshua Fargnoli, Kathy Wilber, and the Louisiana Department of Insurance ("Defendants"). Wang also refers to Louisiana law firm, Boggs Loehn & Rodrigue, as a defendant in this action.
It appears Wang sues them because he worked for the Fargnoli Agency ("Agency") and Defendants "without notice or reason terminated his contract in a secretive manner." Wang had resigned from Branch Manager; however, continued his contract as an Agent which "enable[d] him to retain his residuals which was 100, 000 per year." Following termination, Wang received a Notice of Separation; however, it appears he did not receive any information regarding the termination. Wang seeks residuals for his wrongful termination in the amount of $2, 000, 000 ($100, 000 over the course of an expected 20 year career). Further, Wang claims he was illegally "charged back" while not being paid and consequently seeks damages for violations of his "Civil Rights of Title VII." Next, Wang claims that the Fargnoli Agency engaged in fraudulent business practices by "continuing to discredit Mr. Wang by contacting his clients and saying he was no longer with them." According to Wang, this was untrue because at the time, he acted as a broker and had a valid contract.
Lastly, Wang claims that the Agency and the Louisiana Department of Insurance ("LOI") defrauded insured persons. A federal court must, where necessary, raise the issue of Article III constitutional standing sua sponte. Ford v. NYLCare Health Plans of Gulf Coast, Inc., 301 F.3d 329, 331 (5th Cir. 2001). "[W]here a party attempts to enforce claims rightfully belonging to another, their claims must be dismissed for lack of standing." Grows v. Turner Indus. Group, LLC, Civil Action No. 13-2806, 2013 WL 6072721, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 18, 2013) (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)); see also Warth et al. v. Seldin et al., 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (a party "must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties."). Central to the standing requirement is the prerequisite that a claimant assert their own legal interests, and not the legal rights of other persons. As Wang alleges fraud committed against third parties, the Court must dispose of his fraud claim.
Defendants move the Court to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that it fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, Defendants request a more definite statement, as it is vague and ambiguous. Further, Defendants urge that this latest filing constitutes an abuse of process, and Wang should be sanctioned for the successive filings.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
a. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) Standard for Dismissal
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows for dismissal of an action "for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion need not contain detailed factual allegations, in order to avoid dismissal, the plaintiff's factual allegations must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows a court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id.
Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. ( citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In determining whether a plaintiff has pled factual allegations to state a claim that is plausible, the Court may not evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success but must construe the complaint liberally and accept all of the plaintiff's factual allegations in the complaint as true. See In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2009); s ee also Twombly, 550 U.S. ...