Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

PPG Industries, Inc. v. Electronically Filed Central Industrial Maintenance

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


March 22, 2006

PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
ELECTRONICALLY FILED CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE, INC., AND WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANTS.
v.
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., AND CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE, INC., COUNTER/ CROSS CLAIMS DEFENDANTS CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE, INC. , THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF
v.
ACORDIA OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC. A WEST VIRGINIA CORPORATION, ACORDIA OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC. DOING BUSINESS AS ACORDIA SPECIALTY, ACORDIA OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC. , DOING BUSINESS AS ACORDIA MID-ATLANTIC SPECIALTY, AND ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge

Order of Court

Counter/ Cross Claims Plaintiff,

Before the Court is defendant Westfield Insurance Company's motion to dismiss CIM's cross-claim against Westfield and motion to strike CIM's amended answer and cross-claim to cross-claim for declaratory judgment filed by Westfield. As to Westfield's motion to dismiss CIM's cross-claim against Westfield and motion to strike CIM's amended answer and cross-claim to cross-claim for declaratory judgment filed by Westfield (Document No. 59).

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint [or cross-claim] as true, and draws all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the plaintiff. Armstrong Surgical Center, Inc. v. Armstrong County Memorial Hospital, 185 F.3d 154, 155 (3d Cir. 1999). A claim should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the non-moving party can prove no set of facts in support of its allegations which would entitle it to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Marshall-Silver Construction Co. v. Mendel, 894 F.2d 593, 595 (3d Cir. 1990).

In making this determination, the court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Budinsky v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources, 819 F.2d 418, 421 (3d Cir. 1987). Further, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require notice pleading, not fact pleading, so to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff "need only make out a claim upon which relief can be granted. If more facts are necessary to resolve or clarify the disputed issues, the parties may avail themselves of the civil discovery mechanisms under the Federal Rules." Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 233 n.6 (3d Cir. 2004), quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) ("This simplified notice pleading standard relies on liberal discovery rules . . . to define facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims.").

Viewed in light of the forgoing liberal pleading standards, this Court simply cannot say, at this early stage of the proceedings, that CIM will be able to state no set of facts in support of its cross-claim against Westfield on its cross-claim against CIM.

On the motion to strike, the Court agrees with CIM's response and will deny said motion.

Accordingly, Westfield's motion to dismiss CIM's cross-claim against Westfield and motion to strike CIM's amended answer and cross-claim to cross-claim for declaratory judgment filed by Westfield Insurance Co (Document No. 59) is DENIED.

20060322

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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