Osei v. Sam's Club (Walmart Incorporated)

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 2/12/2018. (c/m to pla 2/14/18 rss, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 2/14/2018 c/m to Ghana & MD addresses (rss, Deputy Clerk).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~,
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern

ID/8 FEB'2

Division

P ~: I 4

*
SARKODIE

YA \V OSEI,

*
Plaintiff,

Case No.: G,J11-17-228.t

*
v.

*
SAM'S CLUB (\VAL-MART

INC.)I

*
Defendant.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
Pro Se PlaintifTSarkodic

*

OPINION
Sam's

Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 14 and 29. and Plaintitrs

to Casc Removal.

necessary.

Lac. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the ftlilowing rcasons. Dclendant's

I.

ECF No. 17. construcd

as a Motion to Remand. No hcaring is
Motion to

Motion to Rcmand is denicd.

BACKGROUND
PlaintilTwas

previously

cmployed

by Dcfendant

Maryland

and asserts claims against Defcndant

attcmpted

wrongful

discriminated
2017. Id.

I

East. Inc. in

ECF No. I. Now pending bcftHe thc Court is

Objcetion

Dismiss is granted. and Plaintiffs

*

County on Junc 29. 2017. ECF NO.2. which Dcfendant

removcd to this C0U11 on August 10.2017.
initial and renewcd

*

*

Yaw asci tiled an action against Dcfcndant

the Circuit Court ftlr Montgomery

Defendant's

*

*

'i

termination.

for political persecution.

discrimination.

and

ECF NO.2. Plaintiff appears to allcge that Dcfendant

against him by assigning
2. However.

at its Sam's Club storc in Gaithersburg.

him extra work and ignoring his requcsts

the majority of Plainti fr s Complaint

and subsequent

The proper defendant is Sam"s East. Inc .• and the case caption will be updated accordingly.

for hclp in

tilings with the

Court allege that Plaintiff is the victim of an international conspiracy and persecution by U.S.
and Ghanaian Government agents. aided by Defendant and its corporatc parent Wal-Mart Stores.
Inc., based on Plaintiffs opposition to the "New Patriotic Partly] (NPP)" political party in
Ghana. See ECI' Nos. 2. 17. 22. 27.
Plaintiff tiled his Complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on July II.
2017. Defendant alleges that Plainti ITdid not serve its residcnt agent: rather. a sheri ff s deputy
handed a copy of the Complaint to Yahaira Castro. the co-manager of Defendant's Gaithersburg
store. See ECF No. 14-1 '1'll8-10. Regardless. Defendant timely removed the action to this Court
on August 10. 20 17 based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28

S
II.

U.s.c.

1332(a)(I).
DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Remand
On September 6.20 17. Plaintiff tiled his Objection to Case Removal From the Circuit
Court. ECF No. 17. which the Court will construe as a Motion to Remand. Ilowever. because
removal was proper. the motion will be denied. Pursuant to 28

U.s.c. S

1332(a). the Court has

original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75.000 and the
action is between citizens of different States. Defendant is incorporated in Delaware. with its
principal place of business in Arkansas. See ECF No. 16 'll2. Plaintiff states that he is a resident
of Maryland. ECF No. 17 'll6. and has alleged damages in the amount of live million dollars. See
ECF NO.2 at 3: see a/so id. at 1 (listing Plaintiffs mailing address as P.O. Box 803.
Germantown, Maryland).2Plaintiffappears

to argue that Defendant is a citizen of Maryland

based on the location of its Gaithersburg store. See ECF No. 17 'll7. Ilowever. because a

Pin cites to documents
by that system.

1

filed on the Court"s electronic

filing system (CM/ECF)

2

refer

10

the page numbers gencr~ltcd

corporation

is deemed to be a citizen of every State in which it has been incorporated

State where it has its principal place of business.
Arkansas.

Defendant

See 28 U.S.c. ~ 1332(c)( I ):1 Therefore.

proper. and Plaintiffs

and the

is a citizen of Delaware and

diversity of citizenship

exists. removal is

Motion to Remand is denied.

B. Motion to Dismiss
At the outset. the Court recognizes
construed.
standards

and a pro se complaint.
than formal pleadings

omitted).

Ilowever.

forth a cognizable

dratied by lawyers .... See Lin/or
I'.

claim. See /Veller

excuse a pro se plaintiff

1'.

Dep'/ o{Soc. Sen's .. 901 F.2d 387. 390-91 (4th Cir.

1'.

advocate

s failure to satisfy the procedural

Md. July 11,2012) (citing Omni Capi/a/ Inlern .. LId.
104 (1987) and Hansan

I'.

construes

requirements

I'.

of service of process. See

2012 WL 2871422.

Rudo/{Wo//f&

at *2 (D.

Co.. !.ld.. 484 U.S. 97.

Fair{clx COUnl)'Sch. Rd.. 405 F. App'x 793. 794 (4th Cir. 2010)).
Plaintiffs

Complaint

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.c.
Act ("MHRA").

and develop claims that he failed

Leeke. 574 F.2d 1147. 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Nor may the Court

Allied Was/e Serl'ices o{Washing/on. No. RWT-I1-1612.

Defendant

Po/son. 263 F. Supp. 3d 613.

the Court may not ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set

to clearly raise. Gordon

1'.

I'.

Pan/us. 551 U.S. 89. 94 (2007)) (internal quotations

1990). The Court may not act as the pro se plaintiffs

Gray

filed pro se is to be liberally

however inartfully pleaded. must be held to less stringent

(E.D. Va. 2017) (citing Erickson

618-19

that a "document

to be a claim for discrimination

~ 2000e e/ self.. or the Maryland

under Title
Iluman Rights

Md. Code. State Gov't ~ 20-101 e/ self" and provides the Court with thrce

separate bases to dismiss the action under Federal Rules of Civil Procure 12(b)(I).
ECF No. 14-1 at 8. First. DefCndant argues that the COlll11acksjurisdiction

(5). and (6).

over Plaintiffs

.• While Plailltiffnrgues that he does 110t reside at his listed Germantown PO 130x mailing address. PlaintiffstalcS
that he is a resident of Maryland and does not give the Court any basis to tind that he is a citizen of either Delaware
or Arkansas to defeat complete diversity of citizenship. See ECF No. 17 ~ 6.

3

discrimination claim because PlaintifT lailed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id (citing
Balas

1'.

HUII/inxlonlngalls

Indus .. Inc .. 711 F.3d 401. 406 (4th Cir. 2013) (under Title VII.

"[a]n employee seeking redress for discrimination cannot Iile suit until she has exhausted the
administrative process") and CI!free \'. Verizan COIllIllC'IIS. 111(",. 55 F. Supp. 2d 672.678 (D.
7
Md. 2010) ("like Title VII. the MHRA does require that would-be plaintiffs first file a charge of
discrimination with an enforcement agency"). Second. Defendant argues that PlaintifT tailed to
properly serve its resident agent pursuant to Maryland Rulc of Civil Procedure 2-124(d). ECF
No. 14-1 at 5. Third. Defendant argucs that Plaintiff has lailed to plead a prilllajilcie

case of

discrimination or retaliatory discharge. ECF No. 14-1 at 9 (citing Nichols \'. COIllCllsl
Cahiel'ision.

84 F. Supp. 2d 642. 653 (D. Md. 20(0) (providing the four elements ofaprillla

.filcie case of discrimination)).

Defendant can prevail on anyone of its three bases: howevcr. becausc Plaintiffs
Complaint fails to provide"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relicI" as required by Rule 8(a)(2). much less meet the standards set t{lrth in Bell All.
Corp.

1'.

Tll"olllhiy. 550 U.S. 544. 570 (2007) and Ashcro/i

\'. I"hal. 556 U,S, 662. 678 (2009) to

"state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face:' the Complaint must be dismissed at the
outset. and thc Court nced not address Defendant's rcmaining arguments in detail. Even alier
liberal construction of the Complaint. the Court is unable to discern a cognizable claim against
Defendant. See Spencer

1'.

Earley. 278 F, App'x 254. 259-60 (4th Cir. 2(08) (quoting !Iailles 1'.

Kerner. 404 U.S. 519. 521 (1972) C'd]ismissal of a pro se complaint ... I{lr failure to state a valid

claim is [ I only appropriate whcn. alier applying this liberal construction. it appears 'beyond
doubt that the plaintifTcan prove no sel offilcls

in support of his claim which would cntitle him

to reliel"')) (emphasis in original), While PlaintifTinvokes general language suggestive of

4

employment

discrimination,

discriminated

he alleges no set of facts to support the notion that he was

against. wrongfully

the Complaint

terminated,

alleges that Defendant

PlaintifTbecause

of his opposition

or constructivcly

is party to an international

to a Ghanaian

complain!.

a court need not do so when determining

O'Connor

I'.

I'.

by Defendant.

conspiracy

RatheL

set up to persecute

political party. In contrast to practice under

Rule 12(b)(6). where a court must presume the truthfulness

Company

discharged

of the allegations

jurisdiction

set forth in the

under Rule 12(b)(I). See

US .. 159 F.R.D. 22. 25 (D. Md. 1994) (citing Ohio Nalional Life Insurance
Uniled Slales. 922 F.2d 320 (6th CiL1990)).

dismiss such "patently

insubstantial"

Under Rule 12(b)( I). Courts may

sua .\j)()nle where the complaint's

complaints

and include "claims describing

"factual

contentions

are clearly baseless"

fantastic or delusional

scenarios:'

See hI. (citing Neil::ke 1'. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989)): see also Ilagam

1'.

Lm'ine. 415 U.S. 528. 536-37 (1974) (federal courts lack power to entcrtain claims that arc "so
attenuated

and unsubstantiatcd

as to be absolutely

Plaintiff has been afforded

an opportunity

dcvoid of merit").
to respond to Defendant's

clarify his cause of action but has refused to do so.~ Moreover.
.. It Is Finished"

sets forth additional

state that he is departing

conspiracy

4

and

last pleading. entitled

thcories that makc no mention of Defendant

and

for Ghana and will never return to the United States. lOCI' No. 27 at I.

The Court will not attempt to extract a legally cognizable
further, and his Complaint

Plaintiff's

arguments

claim from Plaintiff's

pleadings

any

must be dismissed.

On September 25. 2017. PlaintitTfiled

Court's Standing Order Concerning

various pleadings \"dlh the Court contending

Removal.

ECF No. 10. Defendant's

that he had not received the

response thereto. ECF No. 16. and

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, when filed. See ECF Nos. 19-22. !lowever, the docket reflects both
claims to not have received. Plailltiffis
in possession of these
liIings and has not requested additional time to reply.

electronic and mail service of the filings Plaintiff

5

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons. Defendant's initial and renewed Motion to Dismiss. ECF
14 and 29. shall be granted. PlaintilTs Motion to Remand. ECF

o. 17. shall be denied. A

separate Order follows.

Dated: Februarvl ~O

18
GEORGE.I.IIAZEL
United States District Judge

6

os.