Baranyi v. Pacific Aquaculture & Coastal et al

Filing 58

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RESEARCH CORPORATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII'S MOTION TO DISMISS re 48 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 6/24/2014. "However, because Baranyi may be able to allege facts supportin g a viable claim against RCUH, the court gives Baranyi leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that asserts such a claim no later than July 18, 2014." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Sandor V. Baranyi served by first class mail at the address of record on June 24, 2014.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SANDOR V. BARANYI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 13-00667 SOM-KSC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
RESEARCH CORPORATION OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII’S MOTION
TO DISMISS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RESEARCH CORPORATION
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII’S MOTION TO DISMISS
I.

INTRODUCTION.
On May 2, 2014, Plaintiff Sandor V. Baranyi filed a

Second Amended Complaint.

See ECF No. 46.

On May 5, 2014,

Defendant Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii
(“RCUH”) filed a motion to dismiss that complaint.
48.

See ECF No.

Because RCUH is correct in asserting that the Second Amended

Complaint fails to properly allege a claim against it, RCUH’s
motion to dismiss is granted.
II.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that, on September

12, 2012, Dr. Maria Haws, a tenured professor at the University
of Hawaii, retaliated against Baranyi by filing a false
accusation of disruptive behavior with the Dean of Student
Affairs shortly after Baranyi had complained to Haws about age
discrimination and unfair hiring practices.
Complaint, ECF No. 46, PageID # 238.

See Second Amended

Baranyi also claims that

Haws retaliated against him the following week by filing two
false claims of defamation and harassment with the Dean of
Student Affairs and by filing a workplace violence charge with
campus security.

Id., PageID #s 238-39.

Baranyi claims Haws

further retaliated against him by seeking a temporary restraining
order against him in state court.

Id., PageID # 239.

Baranyi

says Haws also retaliated against him by lying to the EEOC
investigator who was looking into an administrative charge filed
by Baranyi and by getting Defendant Richard Short to submit a
false statement to that investigator.

Id., PageID # 239.

Baranyi claims that Haws and Short defamed him by lying to the
EEOC investigator.

Id., PageID # 241-42.

Baranyi additionally claims that Haws discriminated
against him based on his age by lying to him about the
availability of “student assistant jobs.”

Id., PageID # 240.

also claims that Haws caused him emotional distress.

He

Id., PageID

# 241.
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Short is an
employee of and supervisor at the University of Hawaii.

It

alleges that Short’s false statement to the EEOC investigator was
also a form of retaliation, presumably in response to Baranyi’s
filing of an administrative charge with the EEOC.
# 240.

2

Id., PageID

The Second Amended Complaint asserts that the
University of Hawaii is liable for the actions of its employees
and supervisors, Haws and Short.

Id., PageID # 240-41.

It also

claims that the University of Hawaii is responsible for the
emotional distress he suffered.

Id., PageID # 241.

It is not entirely clear why RCUH is named as a
Defendant in the Second Amended Complaint.

The only allegations

against it state:
RCUH and Dr. Maria Haws are co-conspirators
for the Age Discrimination committed against
me. RCUH consented/adopted Dr. Maria C.
Haws[’s] decision to discriminate against me
on the basis of my age. RCUH failed to
investigate the Age Discrimination which was
done to me. RCUH failed to put in place
measures that would ensure that I wouldn’t be
discriminated against based on my age.
Id., PageID # 241.

The Second Amended Complaint fails to explain

RCUH’s relationship to Baranyi or otherwise identify why it
should be held responsible for the alleged age discrimination he
suffered.
III.

RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), review is generally limited to the

contents of the complaint.

Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,

266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); Campanelli v. Bockrath, 100
F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th Cir. 1996).

If matters outside the

pleadings are considered, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion is treated as
one for summary judgment.

See Keams v. Tempe Tech. Inst., Inc.,

3

110 F.3d 44, 46 (9th Cir. 1997); Anderson v. Angelone, 86 F.3d
932, 934 (9th Cir. 1996).

However, courts may “consider certain

materials--documents attached to the complaint, documents
incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of
judicial notice--without converting the motion to dismiss into a
motion for summary judgment.”
903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d

Documents whose contents are alleged

in a complaint and whose authenticity is not questioned by any
party may also be considered in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss.

See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453-54 (9th Cir.

1994).
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, all allegations
of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Fed’n of African Am.

Contractors v. City of Oakland, 96 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.
1996).

However, conclusory allegations of law, unwarranted

deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences are insufficient
to defeat a motion to dismiss.

Sprewell, 266 F.3d at 988; Syntex

Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1996).
Additionally, the court need not accept as true allegations that
contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or
allegations contradicting the exhibits attached to the complaint.
Sprewell, 266 F.3d at 988.

4

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either:
(1) lack of a cognizable legal theory, or (2) insufficient facts
under a cognizable legal theory.

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Robertson v.
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir.
1984)).
“[T]o survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,
factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (internal
quotation marks omitted); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (“the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not
require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than
an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”).
“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to
relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

The complaint must “state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Id. at 570.

“A

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

5

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Iqbal,

556 U.S. at 677.
IV.

ANALYSIS.
Section 304A-3001 of Hawaii Revised Statutes

establishes RCUH, whose purpose is to promote “all educational,
scientific, and literary pursuits.”

Section 304A-3003(6) allows

RCUH to “sue and be sued in its own name.”

It therefore appears

that RCUH is a separate entity from the University of Hawaii,
which, according to the allegations of the Second Amended
Complaint, employs and is therefore arguably liable for negligent
conduct by Haws and Short.
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that RCUH
consented to and adopted Haws’s conduct, failed to investigate
Baranyi’s age discrimination claim, and failed to ensure that
Baranyi would not be subject to age discrimination.

However, the

Second Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations that
explain RCUH’s relationship with Baranyi, Haws, or Short.

At

best, in a conclusory fashion, it alleges that RCUH and Haws are
“co-conspirators.”

But the Second Amended Complaint alleges no

facts providing any context or explaining why RCUH should be
responsible for any discrimination.

The bare-bones, conclusory

allegations as to RCUH fail to properly allege facts supporting a
claim against it.

See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S.

6

at 678.

Accordingly, to the extent the Second Amended Complaint

is asserted against RCUH, it is dismissed.
V.

CONCLUSION.
Because the Second Amended Complaint lacks factual

allegations as to why RCUH should be liable to Baranyi, it is
dismissed to the extent it attempts to assert claims against
RCUH.

However, because Baranyi may be able to allege facts

supporting a viable claim against RCUH, the court gives Baranyi
leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that asserts such a claim
no later than July 18, 2014.
The court dismisses the Second Amended Complaint with
respect to RCUH without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d),
as nothing could be raised at the hearing that could possibly
save the defective pleading.
Although it is his right to proceed in this court pro
se, given Baranyi’s difficulties in asserting viable claims, the
court encourages him to seek legal representation.

If Baranyi

chooses to file a Third Amended Complaint, he should
consecutively number each paragraph of it.

This will make it

easier for the parties and the court to discuss and respond to
it.

Baranyi should also ensure that the Third Amended Complaint

identifies who is being sued, what the legal basis is for each
claim, what facts support the elements of each claim, and what
remedies are being requested.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 24, 2014.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Baranyi v. Univ. of Hawaii, et al., Civ. No. 13-00667 SOM/KSC; ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT RESEARCH CORPORATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII'S MOTION TO DISMISS

8