Miller v. Ryan

• Court: Vermont Superior Court
• Decided: August 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-cv-141
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Vermont Superior Court Filed 03/31 g4 Washmgton mt

SUPERIOR COURT fi? 1 1?4 CIVIL DIVISION Washington Unit Case No. 24—CV—00141 65 State Street Montpelier VT 05602 802-828-2091 fifi www.verm0ntjudiciary.org

Jessica Miller V. Paul Ryan

Opinion and Order on Motion to Dismiss

Defendant has moved to dismiss, asserting that the Complaint is so minimal

that it fails to state a claim against him. The Plaintiff stands by her pleading. The

Court makes the following determinations.

The Vermont Supreme Court disfavors Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.

Ass’n of Haystack Prop. Owners v. Sprague, 145 Vt. 443, 446—47 (such motions are

to be “rarely granted”). “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only when it is

beyond doubt that there exist no facts or circumstances consistent With the

complaint that would entitle Plaintiff to relief.” Bock v. Gold, 2008 VT 81, 1] 4, 184

Vt. 575, 576 (mem.) (citing Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Joerg, 2003 VT 27, 11 4, 175

Vt. 196, 198)). In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court “assume[s] that all

factual allegations pleaded in the complaint are true, accept[s] as true all

reasonable inferences that may be derived from plaintiffs pleadings, and assume[s]

that all contravening assertions in defendant’s pleadings are false.” Mahoney v.

Tara, LLC, 2011 VT 3, 11 7, 189 Vt. 557, 559 (mem.) (internal quotation, brackets,

and ellipses omitted). As a consequence, the threshold a plaintiff must meet to satisfy the notice-

pleading standard under Vt. R. Civ .P. 8 is “exceedingly low.” Huntington Ingalls

Indus., Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2022 VT 45, ¶ 40, 217 Vt. 195, 220–21 (citing Bock,

2008 VT 81, ¶ 4, 184 Vt. at 576 (mem.)). A complaint must still meet a minimum

standard of pleading, however. Vt. R. Civ. P. 8 requires that a complaint’s

allegations show “the pleader is entitled to relief,” and it must provide “fair notice”

to defendant of the claim against him, Vt. R. Civ. P. 8, Reporter’s Notes.

The motion to dismiss founders on the shoals of those standards. Though

exceedingly minimal, the Complaint puts Defendant on notice that Plaintiff owned

a barn, that it burned down, that Defendant’s conduct with regard to hot ash and

flammable materials caused the fire, and that he acted negligently. While

admittedly skeletal, the Court cannot determine such allegations fail the scant

requirements demanded by Rule 8.

Indeed, while Vt. R. Civ. P. 84 abrogated the assemblage of standardized

Forms that used to accompany the Rules of Civil Procedure, it also indicated that

those Forms continued to reflect accurately the “brevity and simplicity” needed to

satisfy Rule 8. Former Form No. 9, applicable to negligence actions, is of like spirit

to the instant Complaint. Form No. 9 instructs would-be plaintiffs that it suffices to

allege:

1. On June 1, 1970, in a public highway called Church Street in Burlington, Vermont, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff who was then crossing said highway.

2. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had plaintiff’s leg broken and was otherwise injured, was prevented from transacting plaintiff’s business, suffered great pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and hospitalization in the sum of one thousand dollars.

If that passes muster, so does Plaintiff’s Complaint.

WHEREFORE, the motion to dismiss is denied.

Electronically signed on Wednesday, March 27, 2024, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).

_______________________ Timothy B. Tomasi Superior Court Judge