Moralez v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.

Filing 60

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 52 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice.(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 Case No. 14-cv-05022-EMC FRANCISCA MORALEZ, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., Docket No. 52 For the Northern District of California United States District Court Defendant. 12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 On November 13, 2014, Plaintiff Francisca Moralez filed the instant action against 15 Defendant Whole Foods Market California, Inc. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended 16 Complaint on July 23, 2015, which the Court dismissed on December 9, 2015. Docket No. 47 17 (SAC). After Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on January 13, 2016, Whole Foods filed 18 a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Docket No. 52 (Mot.). 19 20 21 22 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Whole Foods‟s motion to dismiss and dismiss Plaintiff‟s complaint with prejudice. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff‟s complaint arises out of a series of visits by Plaintiff to a Whole Foods store in 23 Walnut Creek, California. Plaintiff self-identifies as a “physically handicapped person” under the 24 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and requires the assistance of a wheelchair. 25 Docket No. 51 (Third Amended Complaint) (TAC) at ¶ 7. Plaintiff also self-identifies as a “non- 26 white, Mexican-American and American Indian.” Id. at ¶ 8. 27 28 Plaintiff mostly states the same facts that were in her Second Amended Complaint. See Docket No. 54 (Opp.) at 4 (“The third amendment alleges few additional facts . . . .”). 1 Specifically, Plaintiff again alleges that she was involved in a number of disputes and 2 confrontations with the Walnut Creek store regarding the store‟s failure to remove merchandise 3 from a service counter that Plaintiff believed existed for the primary purpose of being useful to 4 disabled persons (like herself) in a wheelchair. Id. at ¶¶ 13-20. Plaintiff ultimately had an 5 unpleasant confrontation with several employees on October 5, 2013, after which she began to 6 shop at a different Whole Foods store. Id. at ¶¶ 21-24. In May 2014, Plaintiff returned to the 7 Walnut Creek store; when she attempted to put her groceries on the service counter, the employee 8 placed a sign in front of her items indicating that the register was closed. Id. at ¶ 25. Two police 9 officers approached Plaintiff, informing her that she was trespassing and that she could be arrested. Id. at ¶ 27. An employee then told Plaintiff that she was “barred from every Whole 11 Foods in the United States of America.” Id. at ¶ 28. 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff then filed the instant suit. Plaintiff‟s original complaint alleged claims under the 13 ADA; however, the parties agreed that the ADA claims were barred by res judicata. Docket No. 14 25 at ¶¶ 4-6. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to the filing of a Second Amended Complaint so 15 that the preclusion-barred claims for violation of the ADA could be removed. Plaintiff‟s Second 16 Amended Complaint alleged (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (2) general 17 negligence, (3) violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and (4) violations of 18 California‟s Unruh Civil Rights Act. SAC at ¶¶ 37-69. 19 This Court dismissed Plaintiff‟s Second Amended Complaint. Docket No. 47 (Motion to 20 Dismiss Order) (Ord.) at 1. In dismissing Plaintiff‟s Title II claims, the Court found that Plaintiff 21 had alleged no specific, non-conclusory facts from which a plausible claim of race discrimination 22 could be stated. Id. at 3. Instead, the Court explained that it “seems clear that the primary claim in 23 this case is based on discrimination due to disability, rather than race, which is reflected by the 24 lack of any specific facts that any of Defendant‟s behavior was due to Plaintiff‟s race.” Id. at 4. 25 The Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice, with the expectation that 26 “[i]f any amended complaint is filed, there must be sufficient factual allegations made with a 27 28 2 1 sufficient basis to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 to support a claim of racial discrimination . . . .”1 Plaintiff then filed the instant complaint, alleging a single claim of race discrimination 2 3 under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. TAC at ¶¶ 37-51. However, Plaintiff also admits in her complaint that 4 “[a]t no time did [she] hear any employee of [Defendant] utter any racially negative comments 5 towards her” or “call her any racially negative names.” TAC at ¶ 26. Plaintiff contends that 6 Whole Foods did refuse her service, and that “P[laintiff] believes there can be no other explanation 7 for her disparate treatment other than D[efendant‟s] racial discrimination.” Id. at ¶ 36. III. 8 DISCUSSION In order to plead a section 1981 claim, a plaintiff must alleged that: (1) she is a member of 9 basis of race, and (3) the discrimination concerned one of the activities enumerated in the statute. 12 For the Northern District of California a racial minority, (2) that the defendant had an intent to discriminate against the plaintiff on the 11 United States District Court 10 See Jefferson v. City of Fremont, No. C-12-0926-EMC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60141, at *5-6 13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012). The Ninth Circuit has found that allegations of “overt acts coupled 14 with racial remarks” are sufficient to state a claim under section 1981. Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 15 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding sufficient allegations where defendants instigated an “arrest- 16 boycott conspiracy” against the plaintiffs and made statements that “whites have no rights on the 17 reservation”). Plaintiff pleads no facts that demonstrate any of the actions that occurred were related to 18 19 racial discrimination. At most, Plaintiff alleges her personal belief that Whole Foods 20 discriminated against her, specifically her belief that there is “no other explanation for her 21 disparate treatment” other than her race. TAC at ¶ 36. However, Plaintiff‟s personal belief of 22 discrimination, without any factual support, is insufficient to satisfy federal pleading standards. 23 See Jones v. Non Profits United, No. 10-4252-EDL, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141574, at *6-7 (N.D. 24 1 25 26 27 28 The Court also: (1) dismissed Plaintiff‟s claim for retaliation with prejudice, finding that the fact that Plaintiff filed a prior suit against Whole Foods did not make her a member of a protected class; (2) dismissed Plaintiff‟s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress without prejudice, finding insufficient factual allegations of outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress; and (3) dismissed Plaintiff‟s claim of negligence without prejudice because it was not clear that a store proprietor‟s duty extended to protecting the emotional well-being of a customer who is refused service and does not suffer an arrest as a result of the proprietor‟s actions. Id. at 610. 3 1 Cal. Feb. 22, 2010) (dismissing section 1981 claim where the plaintiff alleged that she was 2 demoted and terminated because of lies that a white subordinate with racial animus told about her, 3 but made no allegations that the subordinate played any role in the decision to demote or terminate 4 the plaintiff, and no allegations to otherwise support her belief that the adverse employment 5 decisions were due to race); Melendez v. Sunnyvale Life, Inc., No. 14-cv-1771-EJD, 2015 U.S. 6 Dist. LEXIS 81499, at *10-12 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2015) (dismissing section 1981 claim because 7 “outside of the conclusory allegation „the disparate treatment and adverse employment actions 8 were based on Plaintiff‟s race/origin,” there are no facts in the SAC which support the proposition 9 that Emmett terminated Plaintiff out of racial animus, or that Emmett treated Perez more favorably 12-06411 SBA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160620, at *9-10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2013) (dismissing 12 For the Northern District of California because he is of a different race than Plaintiff”); Jimenez v. DTRS St. Francis, LLC, Case No. C 11 United States District Court 10 section 1981 claim where the plaintiff alleged he was assaulted by two hotel security guards 13 because “the mere fact that Plaintiff is identifiable as a Mexican-American, without more, is 14 insufficient to raise a plausible inference that the two hotel security guards acted with the intent or 15 purpose of discriminating against him because of his race and/or national origin. [Citation] The 16 SAC is devoid of any factual content demonstrating that the security guard‟s conduct was racially 17 motivated.”); Murray v. Pac. Architects & Eng’rs, Inc., Case No. 2+:15-cv-00087-GMN-NJK, 18 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108810, at *10 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2015) (dismissing section 1981 claim 19 against supervisor because there were no allegations that the supervisor made or ratified any racial 20 acts or remarks, and allegations that the supervisor had disciplined the plaintiff appeared to have 21 no relation to the plaintiff‟s race). 22 In the instant case, Plaintiff argues that her inability to “point to a concurrent racial 23 statement with the discrimination is not fatal to her case” because she could “prove specific intent 24 through circumstantial evidence.” Opp. at 7-8. However, Plaintiff cites no circumstantial 25 evidence; instead, Plaintiff suggests that Whole Foods “acknowledged its past discrimination 26 against Plaintiff,” citing Whole Foods‟s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Opp. 27 at 8. Plaintiff‟s argument is baseless; Whole Foods never admitted to discriminating against 28 Plaintiff, but simply argued that based on the facts alleged by Plaintiff, any asserted disparate 4 1 treatment was based on disability, not race. Docket No. 28 at 5-6 (Mot. to Dismiss SAC). In 2 short, there is no evidence -- direct or circumstantial -- that any of the alleged events were the 3 result of racial discrimination. While Plaintiff argues that all factual allegations must be taken as 4 true and reasonable inferences drawn in Plaintiff‟s favor, she pleads no non-conclusory facts that 5 even when construed in her favor, could possibly demonstrate that Whole Foods‟s actions had 6 anything to do with race. 7 “To plead intentional discrimination, plaintiff cannot merely invoke his race in the course 8 of a claim‟s narrative and automatically be entitled to pursue relief. Rather, plaintiff must allege 9 some facts that demonstrate that race was the reason for defendant‟s actions.” Mesumbe v. Howard Univ., 706 F. Supp. 2d 86, 92 (D.D.C. 2010). Plaintiff has failed to allege any such facts, 11 and for those reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff‟s complaint. IV. 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 13 CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS Whole Foods‟s motion to dismiss. Because this is the Third 14 Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff has failed to plead any non-conclusory facts supporting her 15 claim of racial discrimination, the Court will dismiss the complaint with prejudice. 16 This order disposes of Docket No. 52. 17 The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment and close the file. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 23 Dated: March 4, 2016 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?