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.

Doe 1008 v. Kieser

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

April 20, 2017

Doe 1008, Plaintiff,
v.
Timothy Darriel Kieser; Deanna Keiser; and the County of Wright, Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, Defendants.

          Michael A. Bryant, Esq., Bradshaw & Bryant PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff.

          James S. McAlpine, Esq., and Jessie L. Sogge, Esq., Quinlivan & Hughes, PA, counsel for Defendants Timothy Darriel Kieser and Deanna Keiser.

          Elizabeth J. Vieira, Esq., and Scott T. Anderson, Esq., Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger, counsel for Defendant County of Wright, Minnesota.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          DONOVAN W. FRANK United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss brought by Defendant County of Wright, Minnesota (“Wright County”) (Doc. No. 26); and a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings brought by Defendant Deanna Kieser (“D. Kieser”) (Doc. No. 22). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motions.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Doe 1008 (“Plaintiff”)[1] filed an Amended Complaint asserting the following three claims: (1) Sexual Abuse [Battery] of a Child (against Defendant Timothy Darriel Kieser (“T. Kieser”)); (2) Negligent Placement and Supervision of Child in Foster Care (against Wright County); and (3) Negligent Supervision of a Child in Foster Care (against D. Kieser). (Doc. No. 9 (“Am. Compl.”) ¶¶ 7-11.)

         Plaintiff alleges that at age twelve Wright County officials placed her into foster care with D. Kieser and her husband, along with their adult son T. Kieser. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff further alleges that T. Kieser sexually abused her over an extended period of time and that, in 2004, T. Kieser was convicted of felony-level criminal sexual conduct related to the abuse. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 6.)

         Relevant to this motion, Plaintiff alleges that Wright County negligently failed to evaluate whether T. Kieser might abuse Plaintiff before placing her in the Kiesers' home, and that Wright County negligently failed to train the Kiesers on how to supervise their son “as another person living in the same residence with a vulnerable child.” (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff also asserts a claim against D. Kieser for failing to properly monitor and supervise Plaintiff and her son. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff seeks to hold T. Kieser, D. Kieser, and Wright County jointly and severally liable for damages in excess of $50, 000 caused by T. Kieser's abuse of Plaintiff.

         Wright County filed a motion to dismiss and D. Kieser filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, both of which the Court considers below.[2]

         DISCUSSION

         I. Legal Standard

         A party may move for judgment on the pleadings at any point after the close of pleadings, but early enough to avoid a delay of trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The Court evaluates a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the same standard as a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6). See Ashley Cty. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 ...


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.