United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Deborah Lansky alleges breach of contract, negligence, and
detrimental reliance. Before the Court is the January 5, 2018
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Defendant ADT
LLC, successor-in-interest to Protection One Alarm
Monitoring, Inc. (“ADT”). Plaintiff responded on
January 15, 2018, arguing for denial of ADT's motion or,
in the alternative, an opportunity to amend her complaint.
(ECF No. 21.) ADT replied on January 22, 2018. (ECF No. 22.)
following reasons, ADT's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is DENIED.
April 11, 2015, Plaintiff entered into a contract with
ADT's predecessor, Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.,
which was to provide alarm monitoring services for
Plaintiff's apartment in Memphis, Tennessee (the
“Contract”). (Compl., ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 4.)
about June 23, 2017, Plaintiff set her alarm before leaving
her apartment. (Id. ¶ 6.) While she was gone, a
burglar broke in. (Id. ¶ 7.) Although the alarm
was activated, ADT failed to notify “the police,
apartment complex, and other proper authorities.”
(Id.) ADT left a voicemail message on
Plaintiff's telephone, asking her to return its call.
(Id. ¶ 8.) Surveillance video recorded inside
Plaintiff's apartment showed that the burglar removed the
alarm system, found Plaintiff's safe, and stole
“approximately one hundred thousand dollars ($100,
000.00) in personal property.” (Id.
October 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Circuit
Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, alleging breach of
contract, negligence, and detrimental reliance against
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. (See generally
December 8, 2017, ADT removed the case to this Court,
alleging diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF No.
1 at 2.) ADT answered on December 15, 2017. (ECF No. 6.)
January 5, 2018, ADT filed its Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and supporting memorandum. (ECF Nos. 8-9.)
Plaintiff responded on January 15, 2018. (ECF No. 21.) ADT
replied on January 22, 2018. (ECF No. 22.)
Jurisdiction & Choice of Law
Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Shelby County,
Tennessee. (Compl., ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 1.) ADT is a limited
liability company, whose sole member is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Florida.
(Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 ¶ 7.) A limited liability
company is a citizen wherever its members are citizens.
See Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d
1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009). ADT is a citizen of Delaware and
Florida. The parties are completely diverse.
alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.
(Compl., ECF No. 1-2 at 14.) “[T]he sum claimed by the
plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good
faith.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab
Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938); see also Mass. Cas.
Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 88 F.3d 415, 416 (6th Cir. 1996).
The requirements of diversity jurisdiction are satisfied.
Choice of Law
diversity actions, state substantive law governs. See,
e.g., Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64,
78 (1938). A federal court applies the choice-of-law
provisions of the state in which it sits. Id.;
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487,
496 (1941); Cole v. Mileti, 133 F.3d 433, 437 (6th
Cir. 1998) (“It is well-established that federal courts
sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law rules of
the forum state.”) (citing cases).
alleges state law claims for breach of contract, negligence,
and detrimental reliance. (Compl., ECF No. 1-2 at
11-14.) Tennessee follows the rule of lex loci
contractus, which provides that a contract is presumed
to be governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which it was
executed, absent a contrary intent. Vantage Tech., LLC v.
Cross, 17 S.W.3d 637, 650 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (citing
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 493
S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tenn. 1973)). The Contract was executed in
Tennessee. Neither Plaintiff nor ADT challenges the
application of Tennessee law. The Court will apply Tennessee
substantive law to Plaintiff's contract claims.
tort claims, Tennessee follows the “most significant
relationship” rule, which provides that “the law
of the state where the injury occurred will be applied unless
some other state has a more significant relationship to the
litigation.” Hataway v. McKinley, 830 S.W.2d
53, 59 (Tenn. 1992). To determine which state has the
“most significant relationship, ” Tennessee
courts consider seven principles:
(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,
(b) the relevant policies of the forum,
(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the
relative interests of those states in the determination of
the particular issue,
(d) the protection of justified expectations,
(e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of
(f) certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result, and
(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to
Id. n.3 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of
Laws § 6 (1971)). When applying those principles, courts
consider four factors: “(a) the place where the injury
occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred, (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of
incorporation and place of business of the parties, [and] (d)
the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties
is centered.” Timoshchuk v. Long of Chattanooga
Mercedes-Benz, No. E2008-01562-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL
3230961, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2009); accord
Hataway, 830 S.W.2d at 59. “[T]hese contacts are
to be evaluated ...