Está en la página 1de 3

Case 3:14-cv-00736-HTW-LRA Document 17 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
vs.

PLAINTIFF-COUNTER DEFENDANT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14cv736-HTW-LRA

CRYSTAL WISE MARTIN AND


BRANDI BARNETT

DEFENDANTS- COUNTER PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT BRANDI BARNETTS MOTION TO DISMISS


Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendant Brandi Barnett
moves the Court to dismiss cross-claims of Defendant Crystal Wise Martin (Martin)
with prejudice and shows the following:
1.

On October 30, 2014, Defendant Martin filed an Answer in the current

case that asserts claims for tortious interference with the marriage contract and reckless
infliction of emotional distress.
2.

The Mississippi Supreme Court has found that a claim for tortious

interference with a marriage contract does not exist. Carter v. Reddix, 115 So. 3d 851,
855 (Miss. 2012). As such, it should be dismissed.
3.

The Mississippi Supreme Court has found that a claim for reckless

infliction of emotional distress does not exist; however, based on the pleadings the
Court could consider the claim to be one for intentional infliction of emotional distress
and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Brent v. Mathis, 2014 Miss. LEXIS 557
*16-17 (Miss. November 6, 2014).
4.

Based on a plain reading of the cross-claim and giving Defendant Martin

the benefit of the doubt it is possible she could be pursuing claims for both negligent

Case 3:14-cv-00736-HTW-LRA Document 17 Filed 11/19/14 Page 2 of 3

infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress.


5.

If Defendant Martin is pursuing a negligent infliction of emotional distress

claim, it should be dismissed as she fails to identify any facts that require Defendant
Barnett to owe her any duty of care.
6.

If Defendant Martin is pursuing an intentional infliction of emotion distress

claim, it should be dismissed as she fails to identify any facts that support a finding that
(1) Defendant Barnett took any action directly toward Defendant Martin, and (2)
Defendant Barnetts actions are extreme and/or outrageous as Defendant Martin admits
that Precious Martin allegedly agreed to have an adulterous affair with Defendant
Barnett. Brent v. Mathis, 2014 Miss. LEXIS 557 *21 (Miss. November 6, 2014).
7.

Based on the simple and straightforward nature of Defendant Barnetts

motion she requests that the separate memorandum requirement be waived.


WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Barnett requests that the
cross-claims by Defendant Martin be dismissed with prejudice.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 19th day of November, 2014.
Respectfully submitted,

s/ NICK NORRIS
NICK NORRIS (MB No. 101574)
LOUIS H. WATSON, JR. (MB No. 9053)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BARNETT
OF COUNSEL:
WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
1880 Lakeland Drive
Suite G
Jackson, MS 39216
-2-

Case 3:14-cv-00736-HTW-LRA Document 17 Filed 11/19/14 Page 3 of 3

Phone No. (601) 968-0000


Facsimile No. (601) 968-0010
nick@watsonnorris.com
Motion to Dismiss (Martin).wpd

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nick Norris, attorney for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, do hereby certify that I
have this day served a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document via
ECF filing or United States Mail, postage prepaid, on all counsel of record.

THIS, the 19th day of November, 2014

s/ Nick Norris
NICK NORRIS

-3-

También podría gustarte