Baranyi v. Pacific Aquaculture & Coastal et al

Filing 74

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RESEARCH CORPORATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE re 64 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 8/20/2014. "Because the Third Amended Complaint lacks factual allegations as to why RCUH is liable to Baranyi, it is dismissed to the extent it attempts to assert claims against RCUH. This dismissal is with prejudice. Having failed to state a claim against RCUH in four successive pleadings (not inclu ding the abortive version of the Second Amended Complaint that Baranyi tried to file), Baranyi gives no indication that he can file an amended complaint alleging facts supporting a viable claim against RCUH. The court dismisses the Third Amen ded Complaint with respect to RCUH without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d). The claims of the Third Amended Complaint asserted against the other Defendants remain for adjudication." (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 shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on August 21, 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 WITH PREJUDICE

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

INTRODUCTION.
Plaintiff Sandor V. Baranyi has been given multiple

opportunities to amend his complaint to state viable claims
against Defendant Research Corporation of the University of
Hawaii (“RCUH”).

Because Baranyi continues to fail to state

viable claims and gives no indication that further opportunities
will provide a better result, the court grants RCUH’s motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

The claims against RCUH are

dismissed with prejudice.
II.

BACKGROUND.
On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff Sandor V. Baranyi filed

the original Complaint in this matter, naming as Defendants
Pacific Aquaculture and Coastal Resources Center, Maria Haws, and
Richard Short.

See ECF No. 1.

The Complaint alleged that

Baranyi, a student at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, had been

seeking employment at Pacific Aquaculture for three years but was
told by Haws that no jobs were available there.
On January 10, 2014, Baranyi filed an Amended
Complaint, naming as Defendants RCUH, Haws, and Short.
No. 12.

See ECF

The Amended Complaint included no claims against Pacific

Aquaculture.

Id.

On February 25, 2014, RCUH sought dismissal of

the Amended Complaint, arguing that the allegations of the
Amended Complaint were insufficient to state a claim against
RCUH.

See ECF No. 21.

At a hearing on the motion, Baranyi

agreed that his Amended Complaint did not outline alleged
wrongdoing on the part of RCUH.

Accordingly, the court granted

the motion and gave him leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.
See ECF No. 41.

The court instructed Baranyi that any Second

Amended Complaint needed to state who was being sued, identify
what each party had done wrong, and state the relief requested.
Id.

At the time of the February 25 hearing, Baranyi had already

attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint.

The court told him

that he could not proceed with that version, but that he could
file a different version.
followed.

Id.

A written order to that effect

See ECF No. 45.
On May 2, 2014, Baranyi filed a Second Amended

Complaint.

See ECF No. 46.

On May 5, 2014, RCUH filed a motion

to dismiss that complaint, again arguing that the pleading failed
to allege a viable claim against it.

2

See ECF No. 48.

The court

agreed with RCUH that the Second Amended Complaint failed to
properly allege a claim against it and granted the motion.
ECF No. 58.

See

In so ruling, the court noted that the allegations

against RCUH accused it of having consented to and adopted Haws’s
conduct and of having been Haws’s “co-conspirator,” but that
there were no allegations suggesting how or why RCUH was even in
a position to consent to or approve of Haws’s conduct, much less
what the object of any alleged conspiracy was.

It remained

unclear what made RCUH responsible for Haws’s alleged action.
Id.

The court gave Baranyi leave to file a Third Amended

Complaint that “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.”

Id., PageID #

291.
On July 17, 2014, Baranyi filed his Third Amended
Complaint.

See ECF No. 62.

The Third Amended Complaint is

similar to the Second Amended Complaint.

In the Third Amended

Complaint, Baranyi adds the assertion that Haws is RCUH’s agent.
See id., PageID # 301, 304-05.

Baranyi alleges no facts

supporting his claim of an agency relationship.

Id.

The factual

allegations in the Third Amended Complaint generally concern
conduct by Haws.

Baranyi alleges that, on September 12, 2012,

Haws, a tenured University of Hawaii professor, retaliated
against him by filing a false accusation of disruptive behavior

3

with the Dean of Student Affairs shortly after Baranyi complained
to Haws about age discrimination and unfair hiring practices.
Id., PageID # 297.

Baranyi also claims that Haws retaliated

against him the following week by filing false claims of
defamation and harassment with the Dean of Student Affairs and by
filing a workplace violence charge with campus security.
PageID #s 297-98.

Id.,

According to Baranyi, Haws further retaliated

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

Id., PageID # 298.

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 # 298-99.

Baranyi, who is 47,

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

Id., PageID # 301.

The Third 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.
# 299.

4

Id., PageID

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

Id., PageID # 299-301.

Why RCUH is named as a Defendant in the Third Amended
Complaint remains unclear.

The only allegations against RCUH

state without elaboration that Haws is RCUH’s agent, that Haws
had “actual authority” to discriminate against Baranyi, and that
RCUH is therefore liable for Haws’s conduct.
# 301, 304-05.

See id., PageID

Baranyi complains that RCUH had a policy of “Non-

Competition” that did not require that jobs be posted, thus
preventing him, as a non-employee, from even knowing about
student jobs.

Id., PageID # 301.

Baranyi, however, fails to

allege what if any role RCUH had with respect to Pacific
Aquaculture’s decision not to hire him.
In his opposition, Baranyi explains that Haws is not
only a tenured professor at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, but
also a director of Pacific Aquaculture, which gets funding from
RCUH.
III.

See ECF No. 69-1, PageID # 336.
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

5

one for summary judgment.

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

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.

6

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

7

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 for the purpose of promoting “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.

It

is the University of Hawaii, according to the allegations of the
Third Amended Complaint, that employs Haws and Short.
The Third Amended Complaint alleges that Haws was
RCUH’s agent, and that RCUH is therefore responsible for the
various forms of discrimination Baranyi alleges.

However, the

Third Amended Complaint neither contains factual allegations
explaining RCUH’s relationship with Baranyi, Haws, or Short, nor
suggests why Haws should be considered RCUH’s agent.

Relying on

filings other than the Third Amended Complaint, the court gathers
that Haws had hiring authority at Pacific Aquaculture, and that
RCUH promoted some or all of Pacific Aquaculture’s activities
through grants or other funding.

The details of the connection

remain unclear in the Third Amended Complaint.

While Baranyi

says that Haws is RCUH’s agent with “actual authority” to commit
the alleged discrimination, the Third Amended Complaint alleges
no facts providing any context or explaining why Haws should be

8

considered RCUH’s agent.

The agency allegation is thus a bare

legal conclusion.
Baranyi does point to the lack of an RCUH policy
requiring the posting of job positions, but his bare-bones,
conclusory allegations as to RCUH do not constitute a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

Even if the absence of an RCUH

posting policy allowed Haws to hide job vacancies from Baranyi,
that does not create an agency relationship between Haws and
RCUH.

There are no allegations that RCUH sought to have Haws or

any other purported “agent” hide job vacancies from Baranyi or
anyone else, or that Haws or anyone else might have been favoring
existing employees or other potential applicants at RCUH’s
direction, on RCUH’s behalf, or even with RCUH’s knowledge.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

See

Nor does

Baranyi suggest that RCUH failed to adopt a job posting
requirement so that RCUH, Haws, or anyone else could act in a
discriminatory or otherwise wrongful manner.

Accordingly, to the

extent the Third Amended Complaint is asserted against RCUH, it
is dismissed.
Having given Baranyi multiple chances to amend his
complaints to assert viable claims against RCUH, the court now
analyzes whether further leave should be granted.

The Ninth

Circuit has cautioned, “Dismissal of a pro se complaint without
leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the

9

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”
Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 1988)
(internal quotation marks omitted); accord Lucas v. Dep't of
Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Unless it
is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect,
however, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the
complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to
dismissal of the action.”).
Given the numerous chances Baranyi has had to amend his
complaint to allege facts supporting a claim against RCUH, the
court determines that it would be futile to grant further leave
to amend with respect to RCUH.

The court makes this

determination even taking into consideration Baranyi’s statements
in his opposition indicating that Haws is a Pacific Aquaculture
director and that Pacific Aquaculture receives funding from RCUH.
See ECF No. 69-1, PageID # 336.

This is more than the Third

Amended Complaint states, but RCUH’s provision of funding to
Pacific Aquaculture does not make it responsible for Baranyi’s
inability to obtain a student job at Pacific Aquaculture, even if
RCUH did not condition its grant of money on the posting of jobs.
In other words, Haws’s failure to hire Baranyi for a job at
Pacific Aquiculture does not, without more, render RCUH liable
based on its provision of funding for jobs at Pacific Aquaculture
and RCUH’s lack of a job-posting requirement.

10

V.

CONCLUSION.
Because the Third Amended Complaint lacks factual

allegations as to why RCUH is liable to Baranyi, it is dismissed
to the extent it attempts to assert claims against RCUH.
dismissal is with prejudice.

This

Having failed to state a claim

against RCUH in four successive pleadings (not including the
abortive version of the Second Amended Complaint that Baranyi
tried to file), Baranyi gives no indication that he can file an
amended complaint alleging facts supporting a viable claim
against RCUH.
The court dismisses the Third Amended Complaint with
respect to RCUH without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d).
The claims of the Third Amended Complaint asserted against the
other Defendants remain for adjudication.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 20, 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
WITH PREJUDICE

11