Summary
denying a motion to dismiss on a gross negligence claim under North Carolina law where a driver caused a collision by failing to slow down in a work zone
Summary of this case from Carmely v. United StatesOpinion
CIVIL 1:21-cv-00158-MR-WCM
06-09-2022
CHRISTOPHER LYNN WILSON; TYANNA ARLENE WILSON; and CHRISTOPHER GEORGE WOODBY, Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM CARRIERS, INC; CHRISTOPHER LEWIS SCOTT; PETROLEUM CARRIERS, INC.; and CD ENERGY, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER
Martin Reidmger Chief United States District Judge
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint [Doc. 26]; the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 29]; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 39] regarding the disposition of those motions; and the Defendants' Objections to Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 40].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Standing Orders of Designation of this Court, the Honorable W. Carleton Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider the Defendants' motions and to submit a recommendation for their disposition. On April 11, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation, recommending that the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be denied and that the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be granted in part and denied in part. [Doc. 39]. The parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. [IdJ. The Defendants timely filed their Objections on April 24, 2022. [Doc. 40]. The Plaintiffs filed their Replies to the Defendants' Objections on May 9, 2022. [Docs. 41, 42]. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
After a careful review of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's proposed conclusions of law are correct and consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint should be denied and the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings should be granted in part and denied in part
Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants' Objections [Doc. 40] is OVERRULED, and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 39] is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
(1) The Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint [Doc. 26] is DENIED;
(2) The Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 29] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Defendants' Motion [Doc. 29] is GRANTED to the extent that the Plaintiffs' claim of negligent training against Associated Petroleum Carriers, Inc. and Petroleum Carriers, Inc. is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In all other respects, the Defendants' Motion [Doc. 29] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.