Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bauman v. Protestant Memorial Medical Center

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 20, 2019

LYNN BAUMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
PROTESTANT MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a/ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and JAN GREENWOOD, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Hon. Reona J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge.

         DALY, Magistrate Judge:

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jan Greenwood's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). Plaintiff timely filed a response (Doc. 20).

         Background

         Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants on March 1, 2018 in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, which was timely removed to federal court. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains the following claims:

Count 1: Violation of ADEA (Age) against Memorial Hospital
Count 2: Violation of ADEA (Retaliation-Age) against Memorial Hospital
Count 3: Violation of IHRA (Age) against Memorial Hospital
Count 4: Violation of IHRA (Age-Retaliation) against Memorial Hospital
Count 5: Retaliatory Discharge for Reports of Employer's Illegal Activity against Memorial Hospital
Count 6: Intentional Interference with Economic Advantage against Greenwood

         Defendant Greenwood's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) argues that there is no existing cause of action for intentional interference with economic advantage. Plaintiff contends there is a cause of action for intentional interference with an economic relationship and that the Amended Complaint contains sufficient allegations to sustain a claim for Greenwood's interference with Bauman's relationship with Memorial Hospital, her employer.

         Legal Standard

         To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a Complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Lodholtz v. York Risk Servs. Group, Inc., 778 F.3d 635, 639 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[W]hen ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Erick ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.