The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, District Judge:
This is a trifling, paltry lawsuit — totally void of serious
This cause is before the Court on the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(1), (6), or (7) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
for failure to join a necessary party, or
for failure to state a claim for relief, respectively.
The Plaintiff, a resident of St. Louis County, Missouri, is the
natural son of Nellie Williams, an Alzheimer patient who resides
in a nursing home in Adams County, Illinois. Nellie Williams'
husband, Ray Williams, resides in the same nursing home. Ray
Williams is the stepfather of the Plaintiff and the natural
father of the Defendant. The Defendant — a stepbrother of
Plaintiff — is a resident of Adams County, Illinois.
In January of 1992, Nellie Williams executed a power of
attorney for health care and property in favor of the Plaintiff.
At the same time, Ray Williams executed a similar power of
attorney in favor of the Defendant. Also, the Defendant allegedly
made an agreement with the Plaintiff, on behalf of Ray Williams,
that Ray Williams would pay for all of the costs of care of
However, in December of 1992 the Defendant took Nellie Williams
to an attorney, where she executed a revocation of the power of
attorney in favor of the Plaintiff and executed a new power of
attorney for health care and property in favor of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff then filed a petition for guardianship of the
person of Nellie Williams in Adams County Circuit Court and
requested that the circuit court declare the revocation of the
prior power of attorney and the creation of the new power of
attorney to be null and void by reason of the exertion of fraud
and undue influence by the Defendant. Plaintiff has since been
named guardian of the person of Nellie Williams, but proceedings
are ongoing in state court to determine the validity of the
second power of attorney executed by Nellie Williams. Also, since
May of 1993, the Defendant has refused to pay the expenses of
upkeep of Nellie Williams.
The Plaintiff has filed suit in this Court seeking compensatory
damages for the costs of having to bring proceedings in state
court to regain control of his mother's person and property. The
Plaintiff also seeks $500,000 in punitive damages for the conduct
of the Defendant. The Defendant has responded arguing that the
complaint should be dismissed because Nellie Williams is a
necessary party to the suit, and that with her named as a party
there is a lack of diversity jurisdiction. Alternatively, the
Defendant argues that the case should be dismissed because the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) provides for dismissal of a cause of
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(7)
concerns dismissal for the failure of a plaintiff to join a
person who is a necessary party to the prosecution of a lawsuit.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6),
the Court "must accept well pleaded allegations of the complaint
as true. In addition, the Court must view these allegations in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Gomez v. Illinois
State Board of Education, 811 F.2d 1030, 1039 (7th Cir. 1987).
Although a complaint is not required to contain a detailed
outline of the claim's basis, it nevertheless "must contain
either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the
material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some
viable legal theory." Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,
745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054,
105 S.Ct. 1758, 84 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985). Mere conclusions, without
supporting factual allegations, are insufficient to support a
claim for relief. Cohen v. Illinois Institute of Technology,
581 F.2d 658, 663 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1135,
99 S.Ct. 1058, 59 L.Ed.2d 97 (1979). Dismissal is not granted
"unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to
relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2
L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).