United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MILES-LAGRANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is defendant Marriott International, Inc.'s
(“Marriott”) Motion to Dismiss, filed October 4,
2017. On October 23, 2017, plaintiff filed his response, and
on November 6, 2017, Marriott filed its reply.
case arises from an on-the-job injury to plaintiff on August
20, 2016, while plaintiff was working for Marriott. Plaintiff
was employed by Marriott as a dishwasher in its hotel in
Norman, Oklahoma. Plaintiff alleges that approximately a year
prior to August 20, 2016, the dishwashing machine began
sounding as if it was about to burst and plaintiff, with the
other dishwashers, continually reported this to both the
management and maintenance department. Neither management nor
maintenance repaired or removed the machine.
August 20, 2016, the pipe underneath the dishwashing machine
burst and spewed extreme hot water over the entire body of
plaintiff and caused him to sustain severe bodily injuries,
both physically and mentally. Marriott immediately began
providing him with workers compensation benefits pursuant to
the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act
(“AWCA”). On June 30, 2017, plaintiff entered
into a joint petition settlement of his workers'
April 25, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant action in the
District Court for Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. On
September 6, 2017, this case was removed to this Court.
Marriott now moves this Court to dismiss plaintiff's
cause of action against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6) and Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, §
5, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Motion to dismiss standard
the standard for determining whether to dismiss a claim
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, the United States Supreme Court
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The
plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement, ” but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a
complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Further,
“[a] court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint
presumes all of plaintiff's factual allegations are true
and construes them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
asserts, in part, that plaintiff's cause of action
against it is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions in
the AWCA. The exclusive remedy provisions provide, in
A. The rights and remedies granted to an employee subject to
the provisions of the Administrative Workers'
Compensation Act shall be exclusive of all other rights and
remedies of the employee, his legal representative,
dependents, next of kin, or anyone else claiming rights to
recovery on behalf of the employee against the employer, or
any principal, officer, director, employee, stockholder,
partner, or prime contractor of the employer on account of
injury, illness, or death. Negligent acts of a co-employee
may not be imputed to the employer. No. role, capacity, or
persona of any employer, principal, officer, director,
employee, or stockholder other than that existing in the role
of employer of the employee shall be relevant for
consideration for ...