United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Mound Evangelical Free Church and Mound Evangelical Free Church, Plaintiffs,
ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services and Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products, Defendants
For Mound Evangelical Free Church, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Mound Evangelical Free Church, Plaintiffs: Joseph F Lulic, LEAD ATTORNEY, Hanson Lulic & Krall, LLC, Minneapolis, MN; Andrew S Augustin, Madison, WI.
For ADT LLC of Delaware, a Delaware corporation doing business as ADT Security Services, Tyco Fire Products, LP, a Delaware corporation doing business as Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products, Defendants: Aaron K Kirkland, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO; Michael R Docherty, Attorney at Law, PLLC, Edina, MN.
David S. Doty, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon the motion to dismiss by defendant ADT LLC of Delaware, d/b/a ADT Security Services (ADT). Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the motion is granted.
This property-damage dispute arises out of water damage to the building of plaintiff Mound Evangelical Free Church (Mound Evangelical). On July 6, 2012, a sprinkler head activated and caused water to accumulate inside the church. Compl. ¶ 5. ADT provided security and monitoring services for Mound Evangelical and received notification of an alarm at the church. Id. ¶ ¶ 3, 12. As a result of the sprinkler activation, Mound Evangelical sustained over $50,000 in damage. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (Brotherhood) compensated Mound Evangelical for the damage as provided for by its insurance contract with Mound Evangelical. Id. ¶ ¶ 2, 6.
On June 20, 2013, Brotherhood, as subrogee of Mound Evangelical, filed a complaint in Minnesota court, alleging a negligence claim against ADT. ADT timely removed, and moves to dismiss.
I. Standard of Review
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, " a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). " A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff [has pleaded] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must raise a right to relief above the speculative level. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. " [L]abels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" are not sufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Brotherhood argues that ADT was negligent in its response to the alarm notification. In its complaint, Brotherhood alleged that ADT " failed to exercise ordinary care by not taking the proper steps and by failing to notify the proper public authorities as well as the church in a timely manner." Compl. ¶ 13. ADT moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that under Minnesota ...