state farm mutual automobile insurance co.

v riley
Facts:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm)
(plaintiff) brought an interpleader action in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Nancy DeMarco (defendant)
filed an answer in response to the complaint for interpleader. The court
then issued a sua sponte memorandum opinion and order to strike
DeMarcos answer. DeMarco was granted leave to file a new answer.
Issue. Should a lawsuit be dismissed if the clear and unambiguous
language of a complaint cannot be reasonably interpreted to state a
claim for the relief that the plaintiff has requested?
Rule: A complaint must allege facts that can be reasonably interpreted
to state a claim for the relief that the plaintiff has requested.
Holding:
The District Courts order granting Ds motion to dismiss is affirmed.
- Plaintiff did not allege how Defendants could have breached a
contract that could be cancelled for any or no reason. Plaintiffs
allegations also do not show an independent basis for his claim.
- Although courts should not dismiss a claim if there is a possible claim
for relief, courts are not under a duty to make up claims that are not
alleged in the complaint.
- The plaintiff has a right to amend his complaint once. The District
Court would have given the plaintiff an additional opportunity to
amend the complaint even after it had been dismissed. Therefore, the
plaintiff had opportunities to correct the defects in his complaint but
did not do so.
Discussion:
A complaint that clearly and unambiguously alleges facts that do not
state a claim for relief or does not tie the facts to the relief requested is
defective and should be dismissed.