IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
June 15, 2006
PEDRO SANCHEZ AND AMPORO SANCHEZ PLAINTIFFS,
THE CLEVELAND VIBRATOR COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
A. Factual and Procedural History
On February 1, 2006, plaintiffs Pedro and Amporo Sanchez filed a complaint with this Court against defendant Clinton Inc., d/b/a The Cleveland Vibrator Company ("Cleveland"). The Sanchez's claims arise out of Pedro's having suffered severe injuries as a result of entangling his arm in an industrial mechanical feeder system (See Doc. 1). In Counts I through IV, Pedro Sanchez asserts four separate theories of Cleveland's liability for those injuries (Doc. 1, pp. 1-17). The remaining Counts, Count V through VIII, are brought by Amporo Sanchez, Pedro's wife (See Doc. 1, pp. 17-34). In those counts, Amporo Sanchez alleges four separate loss of consortium claims corresponding to each theory of recovery asserted by Pedro in the four separate claims he asserts.
Now before the Court is Cleveland's motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) asking this Court to dismiss Counts V through VIII. Therein, Cleveland asserts that Amporo Sanchez "cannot allege four separate claims for loss of consortium against the Defendant" (Doc. 10). Cleveland is incorrect.
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8(e)(2) allows Amporo Sanchez to "set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternately or hypothetically, either in one count or defense or in separate counts or defenses." FED.R.CIV.P. 8(e)(2)(emphasis added). While it may be true that Amporo cannot ultimately recover on more than one claim for loss of consortium, she is entitled to assert separate claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Cleveland's motion to dismiss (Doc. 10).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.