United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an insurance coverage dispute. Before the Court is Defendant
Geico Indemnity Company's (“Geico”) motion
“to dismiss the second cause of action in
Plaintiff's complaint, or in the alternative, to
sever/bifurcate and to stay claims for bad faith.” (ECF
Nos. 6, 7.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff Michael
Hendon's response (ECF No. 13) as well as Geico's
reply (ECF No. 15). For the following reasons, the Court
grants Geico's motion and dismisses Plaintiff's
second cause of action for violations of NRS § 686A.310.
following facts come from the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) unless
suffered personal injuries in a car accident on July 19,
2017, including “a closed head injury with positive
loss of consciousness, cervical strain, thoracic strain,
lumbar strain, and mental anguish.” (Id. at
3-4.) Plaintiff's insurance policy
(“Policy”)- provided by Geico-included uninsured
motorist's coverage with limits of $100, 000 per person
and $300, 000 per incident. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff
received a settlement from the at-fault driver's
insurance policy and then made a claim under his uninsured
motorist's coverage with Geico. (Id. at 4.)
Geico offered to settle Plaintiff's claim for $27, 067.
filed the Complaint in the Second Judicial District Court
(see Id. at 2), and Geico removed based on diversity
jurisdiction (ECF No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff asserts two claims:
breach of contract and violations of NRS § 686A.310.
(ECF No. 1-1 at 5-6.)
may dismiss a plaintiff's 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 Atl. 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) (citing Papasan v.
Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). “Factual
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. at 678 (internal citation omitted).
Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step
approach district courts are to apply when considering
motions to dismiss. First, a district court must accept as
true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint;
however, legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption
of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, supported only by
conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. at 678.
Second, a district 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 a
court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678. Where
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. at 679. When the claims in a complaint have not
crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint
must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
complaint must contain either direct or inferential
allegations concerning “all the material elements
necessary to sustain recovery under some viable
legal theory.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562
(quoting Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745
F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1989)).
moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claim under NRS §
686A.310. (See ECF No. 6 at 8.) The parties
seem to agree that Plaintiff alleges violations of NRS §
686A.310(1)(b), (e), (f), and (n) (see ECF No. 13 at
5-7; ECF No. 15 at 3-5), even though the Complaint does not
expressly identify these provisions (see ECF No. 1-1
Court agrees with Geico that Plaintiff's Complaint fails
to allege a plausible claim for relief under NRS §
686A.310. In support of this claim, Plaintiff alleges nothing
more than that Geico “failed to provide adequate
insurance coverage to Plaintiff . . . and has failed to
settle Plaintiff[‘s] . . . insurance claim in good
faith.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 6.) These allegations amount to
“a bare recital of the elements of the claim without
any supporting factual allegations.” Dearaujo v.
PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, No. 2:12-cv-00981-MMD,
2012 WL 5818131, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2012); see also
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.”). Plaintiff asserts that his counsel
“engaged in lengthy negotiations and permitted [Geico]
to conduct an interview of the Plaintiff as additional
material for consideration of his claim, ” but
Plaintiff does not identify how those negotiations or
Plaintiff's interview ...