This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
13
As previously discussed, Plaintiff is required to a ssert ―enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, ‖
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, and here, she has failed to advance
any facts supporting the bald assertion that Fox an d Morgan were
negligent in their training or supervision of subor dinate police
officers.8 See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 ( ―Threadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice‖ to survive a motion to
dismiss.).
Accordingly, the City Defendants‘ motion to dismiss is
granted with respect to Counts Two through Six of t he Complaint
based on such Defendants‘ sovereign immunity and/or Plaintiff‘s
failure to assert, or failure to adequately assert, a cause of
action against each of the City Defendants.
C. Counts Two through Six - Gayle and Briggs
1. Count Two – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Defendants Gayle and Briggs argue that Count Two, a lleging
intentional infliction of emotional distress, fails to advance
sufficient facts to state a claim on which relief c an be
granted. Intentional infliction of emotional distr ess is a
disfavored cause of action in Virginia. Ruth v. Fl etcher, 237
8 Similarly, even if Count Six can be construed as at tempting to
allege that Fox and Morgan were grossly negligent, such claim
would fail under Twombly as plaintiff offers no fac ts that would
support a finding of gross negligence. Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)