United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Geico Casualty Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff
Barbara Sgrillo filed a response (ECF No. 10), to which
defendant replied (ECF No. 14).
before the court is defendant's motion to stay. (ECF No.
8). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 10), to which
defendant replied (ECF No. 14).
February 5, 2016, while parked at a stop light,
plaintiff's car was hit by a third-party driver. (ECF No.
1-1). Plaintiff alleges that she sustained serious injuries
from the accident that require continuing medical treatment.
time of the accident, plaintiff was insured through
defendant. Plaintiff's policy provides for $250,
000/$500, 000 uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance.
Id. “[F]ollowing the accident with the
third-party driver, and after determining that the third
party driver had insufficient policy limits to cover
Plaintiff's injuries and damages, Plaintiff demanded
uninsured/underinsured policy limit payment from Defendant .
. . .” Id. Plaintiff alleges that defendant
“refused to make adequate payment to Plaintiff
as was required under the Policy.” Id.
(emphasis added). Plaintiff alleges that
“Defendant's refusal to pay Policy limits
was made in bad faith and for the purpose of denying the
benefits of contract for underinsured motorist coverage to
plaintiff.” Id. (emphasis added).
December 14, 2017, plaintiff filed suit in state
court. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff's complaint
alleges three causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2)
bad faith and unfair claims practices; and (3) breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (ECF No. 1-1).
February 15, 2018, defendant removed the instant action to
this court. (ECF No. 1). Thereafter, defendant filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, (ECF No. 7), and a motion to stay plaintiff's
claims for bad faith and unfair claims practices, (ECF No.
may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “[a]
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2);
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual
allegations, it demands “more than labels and
conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (citation omitted).
Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step
approach district courts are to apply when considering
motions to dismiss. First, the court must accept as true all
well-pled factual allegations in the complaint; however,
legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. Id. at 678-79. Mere recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory
statements, do not suffice. Id. at 678.
the court must consider whether the factual allegations in
the complaint allege a plausible claim for relief.
Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the
plaintiff's complaint alleges facts that allow the court
to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678.
the complaint does not permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
“alleged-but not shown-that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). When the allegations in a complaint have not
crossed the line from conceivable to plausible,
plaintiff's claim must be dismissed. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570.
Ninth Circuit addressed post-Iqbal pleading
standards in Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th
Cir. 2011). The ...