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.

McClary v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

August 29, 2017

MICHAEL G. MCCLARY, JR., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
GREYHOUND LINES, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Hon. Glen E. Conrad, United States District Judge.

         Michael and Anna McClary, individually and on behalf of their minor son, I. McClary, filed this action in the Circuit Court of Wythe County against Greyhound Lines, Inc. ("Greyhound"). Greyhound removed the action to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and then moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case is presently before the court on Greyhound's renewed motion to dismiss, which seeks dismissal of the amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs. The court held a hearing on the motion on August 17, 2017. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant Greyhound's motion.

         Background

         The following facts, taken from the plaintiffs' amended complaint, are accepted as true for purposes of the defendant's motion to dismiss. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) ("[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.").

         On the morning of April 8, 2016, Mrs. McClary discovered that her thirteen-year-old son, I. McClary, was not at the family's residence. The McClary family lives approximately two miles from the Greyhound bus station in Max Meadows, Virginia. Unbeknownst to his parents, I. McClary walked to the station at approximately 3:15 a.m. and purchased a bus ticket to Brooklyn, New York. He boarded the bus an hour later carrying his father's pistol.

         Prior to selling the bus ticket, the attendant asked I. McClary whether someone had come with him to the bus station and if he had driven there. I. McClary answered both questions in the negative. Despite his answers to the attendant's questions and his "obvious appearance, " the attendant sold him the ticket without requiring him to present an unaccompanied minor form, as required by company policy. Am. Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 11.

         After learning that their son had boarded a bus to New York, Mr. and Mrs. McClary notified the Wythe County Sheriffs Office ("Sheriffs Office"), and deputies went to the bus station to speak to the attendant on duty. Although the attendant admitted that he had sold I. McClary a ticket to Brooklyn, New York, he refused to provide any additional information, such as bus stops or numbers.

         Mr. McClary subsequently realized that his pistol was missing from his nightstand. He immediately notified the Sheriffs Office that his son might be carrying a loaded pistol. The Sheriffs Office worked all day trying to obtain information from Greyhound. However, Greyhound refused to give Mr. and Mrs. McClary or the Sheriffs Office information regarding bus routes or stops. The company also refused to contact its own drivers to assist in locating I. McClary.

         Mr. McClary drove to New York, hoping to arrive before his son. While en route, the New York City Police Department ("NYPD") joined in the efforts to locate I. McClary. Around 7:30 p.m. that same day, the Sheriffs Office advised Mr. and Mrs. McClary that NYPD officers had located their son at a bus station in Manhattan. Because he was carrying a loaded firearm, I. McClary was arrested and immediately placed in the custody of the NYPD.

         The plaintiffs claim that Greyhound's actions caused them to suffer "extreme stress." Id. ¶¶ 47, 64, 81. The stress "manifested] ... in the form of physical shaking, interrupted sleep, [and] panic attacks that have caused them to alter and change [their] eating and sleeping habits." Id. Additionally, Mr. McClary's blood pressure has become "elevated and erratic at times, which was not an issue before this incident." Id. ¶ 47.

         Procedural History

         The plaintiffs filed suit against Greyhound in February of 2017. The original complaint, filed in state court, contained three counts labeled as claims for "negligence/emotional distress." See Compl. 3-4, 6, ECF 1-1. Upon removing the case to this court, Greyhound moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On May 19, 2017, the parties appeared before the court for a hearing on Greyhound's motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court took the motion under advisement and granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

         On June 1, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, asserting claims of "negligent infliction of emotional distress" on behalf of each plaintiff. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3 8, 55, 72 ("This is an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.") In response, Greyhound renewed its motion to dismiss. Greyhound's motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for review.

         Standard ...


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.