Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fusco v. Rogers

United States District Court, D. Maine

March 27, 2019

ANTHONY FUSCO, Plaintiff,
v.
MARY HAYNES ROGERS Defendants.

          ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

          JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The Court grants a defendant's motion to dismiss a plaintiff's complaint against the director of his former employer regarding his dissatisfaction with an insurance company's handling of his claim for long-term disability benefits, because the complaint does not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 8(a)(2).

         I.BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural History

         On July 2, 2018, Anthony Fusco, acting pro se, filed and served a complaint in York County Superior Court naming as Defendants Noel L. Haynes, Katie Doherty, Mary Haynes Rogers, Kim E. Davis, and Andrew Davis, Esq. Notice of Removal, Attach. 1, Compl. with Exs. (ECF No. 1-1) (Compl.). With the Complaint, Mr. Fusco filed eighty-four pages of exhibits.[1] Id.

         Ms. Rogers answered Mr. Fusco's Complaint in York County Superior Court on July 30, 2018. State Court Record, Attach. 7, 7-30-18 Answer of Mary Haynes Rogers (Martin) (ECF No. 10-7). That same day, Mr. Haynes and Ms. Doherty filed a notice of removal of the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Notice of Removal (ECF No. 5) (Notice of Removal).

         On January 14, 2019, the Court granted motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Andrew Davis, Kim Davis, Noel Haynes, and Katie Doherty. Order on Mots. To Dismiss (ECF No. 28) (Order on Mots. to Dismiss as to Other Defs.). On January 17, 2019, remaining Defendant Ms. Rogers filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 30) (Def.'s Mot.). On January 31, 2019, Mr. Fusco filed a letter expressing his dissatisfaction with the Court's dismissal of his complaints as to Mr. Davis, Ms. Davis, Mr. Haynes, and Ms. Doherty. Letter by Anthony J. Fusco (ECF No. 33). On February 1, 2019, Mr. Fusco filed another letter, which the Court interprets as a response in opposition to Ms. Roger's motion to dismiss. Letter by Anthony J. Fusco (ECF No. 34) (Pl.'s Opp'n). On February 8, 2019, Ms. Rogers replied. Reply to Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 35) (Def.'s Reply).

         On March 11, 2019, Mr. Fusco filed two additional letters with the Court, Letter by Anthony J. Fusco (ECF No. 37); Letter by Anthony Fusco (ECF No. 38), which appear to be duplicates of several exhibits Mr. Fusco originally filed in support of his Complaint. Id. These letters are not compliant with this District's Local Rule 7, which only permits the moving party to “file a reply memorandum, . . . which shall be strictly confined to replying to new matter raised in the objection or opposing memorandum.” D. Me. Loc. R. 7(a)-(c). Rule 7 does not allow Mr. Fusco to file additional replies, nor does it allow replies not responsive to the Defendant's objection. The Court has not considered these letters in deciding the instant motion.

         B. Statement of Facts

         The dispute appears to arise from Mr. Fusco's dissatisfaction with Unum Life Insurance Company of America's (Unum) decision regarding the payment of long-term disability benefits under a group insurance policy issued to Mr. Fusco's former employer, Shalom House. In the first page of his Complaint, titled “Pro Se Lawsuit Summary and Contact Sheet, ” he outlines his charges against Ms. Rogers, Executive Director of Shalom House. Compl. at 1. Mr. Fusco charges Ms. Rogers with “Collusion, ” “Depraved Indifference to Human Life, ” “Breach of Contract, ” and two counts of “Defamation of Character.” Id. at 1. In support of his claims, Mr. Fusco alleges that Shalom House told Unum he was fired for disciplinary reasons. Id. at 21. He states “[i]t is Impossible to tell a more Blatant, Obvious Lie.” Id. (capitalization in original). He alleges that Ms. Rogers ignored his letters, stating “your absolute, total disregard for my well-being, and rights, is DEPLORABLE, beyond comprehension. You and UNUM both accused me of lying and lied about me.” Id. at 22. Also included with his Complaint is a letter to Ms. Rogers disputing Unum's determination and stating that “Shalom House as an Employer has a Legal Responsibility, to make sure Employees get Benefits paid for . . ..” Id. at 75. Mr.

         Fusco alleges no other facts in his Complaint or the accompanying exhibits relevant to his charges against Ms. Rogers.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6)

         Rule 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to 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 defendant may base such a motion on either or both of two grounds: (1) a challenge to the ‘sufficiency of the pleading' under Rule 8(a)(2); or (2) a challenge to the legal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.