Ng v. Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc.

Background

Brian Coke Ng, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a diversity action against Sedgwick Global Inc., Sedgwick, Inc., Sedgwick, L.P., and Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc. He alleged that Kmart Pharmacy incorrectly filled a 2010 prescription for Sertraline/Zoloft, gave incorrect instructions, and provided incorrect dosage amounts. Ng alleged that he later experienced symptoms and was diagnosed with Myalgia and Drug Induced Movement Disorder.

Ng alleged that, in 2017, he spoke with Sandra Brach of Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc. about his situation. According to the amended complaint, Brach asked him to send documents, said she would review them, and said she would contact him. Ng alleged that Sedgwick later denied his claim based on the statute of limitations. He claimed approximately $3.8 million in damages and more than $30,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.

Ng had brought related lawsuits based on the same underlying facts. The opinion states that claims against some earlier defendants were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice because of a bankruptcy-related injunction, while the claims against Sedgwick in that earlier proceeding were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. In a later related proceeding, the court denied Ng’s request to add additional defendants, and that proceeding was also dismissed by a separate order.

Claims and Legal Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court was required to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences for Ng, while not accepting legal conclusions or unsupported conclusory statements. Because Ng represented himself, the court read his allegations liberally, but he still had to allege specific facts making his claims plausible.

The amended complaint asserted promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation under New York law.

Promissory Estoppel

A promissory-estoppel claim requires a clear and definite promise, reasonable reliance on that promise, and injury caused by the reliance. The court held that Ng did not allege a clear and definite promise. The alleged statements that he should send his documents and that Brach would review them and follow up showed, at most, a willingness to consider the materials. They did not promise a specific investigation, action, or result. The court also found the alleged promises too vague and indefinite to support the claim.

Equitable Estoppel

Equitable estoppel is an exceptional remedy generally requiring a false representation or concealment of a material fact, an intent that the other party rely on it, and knowledge of the true facts. The person asserting the claim must also show lack of knowledge of the true facts, reliance, and a prejudicial change in position.

The court held that Brach’s alleged use of the word “ok” during the phone call could not reasonably be understood as a representation that she had approved Ng’s claim. The court also held that statements about reviewing or investigating the claim concerned possible future conduct, not a representation about a past or present fact. Finally, the court found no allegation that Ng relied to his detriment on the denial letter. The equitable-estoppel claim therefore failed.

Negligent Misrepresentation

A negligent-misrepresentation claim requires, among other things, a duty arising from a special relationship, an incorrect representation, an intended and reasonable reliance, and resulting harm. The court assumed for purposes of the motion that Ng’s allegations about a special relationship were sufficient at the pleading stage, particularly given his status as a self-represented litigant.

The court nevertheless held that Ng failed to allege the required false statement and detrimental reliance. Ng did not allege that he relied on the alleged statement about the absence of an earlier claim, or on statements in the denial letter, to his detriment. The alleged statements about reviewing documents and investigating his injuries were not alleged to be false and concerned future conduct rather than factual misrepresentations. The negligent-misrepresentation claim therefore failed.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court stated that Ng had filed three separate lawsuits based on the same underlying facts, that he had failed to state a legally cognizable claim in the parallel case, and that he had already been given an opportunity to amend in this case. The amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.