Opinion
2:09-cv-01073-HDM-LRL.
October 4, 2010
ORDER
Before the court is defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) (#61). Defendant's motion seeks judgment only as to plaintiff Jeremy Traylor's claim. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion, and the time for doing so has expired.
"A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001). According to plaintiff's complaint, Jeremy Traylor is Onice Traylor's son. (Pl. Compl. ¶ 18). Jeremy Traylor's sole claim is for loss of consortium based on the injuries sustained by his mother in defendant's store. The Nevada Supreme Court has declined to recognize a claim for loss of parental consortium. Heidt v. Heidt, 842 P.2d 723, 725 (Nev. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc., 921 P.2d 933 (Nev. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Gen. Motors Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 P.3d 111 (Nev. 2006); see also Cardinale v. La Petite Academy, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1161 (D. Nev. 2002). Thus, even if all the allegations of the pleadings were true, Jeremy Traylor would not be entitled to relief against defendant for loss of consortium. Defendant is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Jeremy Traylor's claim, and its motion for judgment on the pleadings (#61) is hereby granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 1st day of October, 2010.