“[p]unitive damages in Illinois represent a type of relief rather than an independent cause of action.”
How later courts described this case
- “[p]unitive damages in Illinois represent a type of relief rather than an independent cause of action.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEANGELA MANNING, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 20-cv-367-RJD RJD
)
YRC, INC. AND SAMUEL MORGAN )
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the following motions: 1) Defendant Samuel
Morgan’s Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages Claim (Doc. 9) and Memorandum in Support of
Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages Claim (Doc. 10); 2) Defendant YRC, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Punitive Damages (Doc. 18) and Memorandum in Support of
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Punitive Damages (Doc. 19). Plaintiff filed a Response
to Defendant Morgan’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22). Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Dismiss
Punitive Damages in Counts II and III (Doc. 21). For the reasons stated below, all three motions
are DENIED.
Plaintiff cites diversity jurisdiction as the basis for filing this case in federal court. Her
claims are purportedly based on Illinois state law.1 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that she was
injured while traveling on Highway 50 in Clay County, Illinois, when her vehicle collided with a
1 Neither party raised a choice of law issue, so this Court will apply Illinois law on substantive law issues. Wood v.
Mid-Valley Inc., 942 F.2d 425, 426 (“the operative rule is that when neither party raises a conflict of law issue in a
diversity case, the federal court simply applies the law of the state in which the federal court sits.”)
Page 1 of 4
tractor trailer driven by Defendant Samuel Morgan. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant YRC,
Inc. employed Defendant Morgan. Plaintiff’s Complaint contains seven counts: Count I against
Defendant Samuel Morgan and Counts 2-7 against YRC, Inc. Plaintiff asks the Court to award her
punitive damages in all seven counts. In addition to filing their Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Punitive Damages Claims, Defendants also filed Answers to all counts brought against them.
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Punitive Damages
Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s “claims for punitive damages” pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Illinois law does not recognize a claim brought solely
for punitive damages. Kemner v. Monsanto Co., 217 Ill. App.3d 188, 199 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)
(“[p]unitive damages in Illinois represent a type of relief rather than an independent cause of
action.”) In addition to seeking punitive damages, Plaintiff is also seeking compensatory damages
in all counts in her Complaint. The parties do not cite to any authority that interprets Rule 12(b)(6)
to allow the “dismissal” of one class of damages while the rest of Plaintiff’s claim remains in the
Complaint. See, e.g., Eldracher v. Honeywell, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-1414, 2015 WL 3419167, *1
(S.D. Ill., May 28, 2015).
Essentially, what Defendants are asking this Court to do is strike Plaintiff’s requests for
punitive damages. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the Court “may strike from
a pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” Motions to strike are generally disfavored because, in some instances, they “only serve to
delay.” Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989). A motion
to strike may be helpful where pleadings contain “unnecessary clutter.” Id. Defendants do not
contend, nor does it appear to this Court, that Plaintiff’s requests for punitive damages are
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, or that they unnecessarily clutter this case.
Page 2 of 4
Ultimately, the Court can award Plaintiff punitive damages if warranted by the evidence, whether
or not Plaintiff asks for punitive damages in the Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c).
In the alternative, Defendants ask the Court to order Plaintiff to amend her complaint to
“plead sufficient facts and make a more definite statement.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e)
allows the Court to order a party to prepare a more definite statement where a pleading “is so vague
or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” That is not the case
here, as both Defendants already filed their Answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Consequently,
Defendants’ motions are denied.
Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice of Claims for Punitive Damages in Counts
II and II
In response to Defendant YRC, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages Claims in
Counts II and III, Plaintiff moved the Court for a voluntary dismissal of her claims for punitive
damages in Count II and Count III, but she does not want to dismiss Counts II and III in their
entirety. Where a plaintiff wants to delete items from her Complaint, the appropriate method is to
ask the Court for leave to amend her Complaint. Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2015).
Assuming Plaintiff simply intended to ask the Court to strike her requests for punitive damages,
that request is denied. If Plaintiff wants to litigate Counts II and III without requests for punitive
damages contained in her Complaint, she may file a motion for leave to amend her complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Samuel Morgan’s Motion to Dismiss Punitive
Damages Claim (Doc. 9) and Defendant YRC, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for
Punitive Damages (Doc. 18) are DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages in
Counts II and III (Doc. 21) is DENIED.
Page 3 of 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 6/30/2020
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 4 of 4