Ferebee v. Chick-Fil-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 3 Motion by Defendants to Dismiss ; directing clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 4/12/2018. (c/m 4/13/2018 aos, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 4/13/2018 (aos, Deputy Clerk).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RENEE (COG) FEREBEE,
MR. TREVELLE HARVEY,
Civil Action No. PX-18-0335
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Renee Ferebee (“Ferebee”), proceeding pro se, brings suit against Defendants1
Chick-Fil-A and its Owner/Operator Trevelle Harvey for claims of defamation, discrimination,
conspiracy, and her “civil rights being violated,” and seeks $5 million in damages. ECF No. 1 at
2. Plaintiff has filed a “Continuation to Law Suit Claim” as part of her pleading, which the Court
construes as part of Ferebee’s Complaint. See ECF No. 1 at 3. Now pending before the Court is
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Ferebee’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). (ECF No. 3.) The motion is fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. See D. Md.
Loc. R. 105.6. Upon consideration of the Complaint and all pleadings, the Court GRANTS
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Ferebee incorrectly names Chick-Fil-A in the Complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court refers to the proper legal
entities, Trevelle Harvey and the Harvey Restaurant Group, Inc., as “Defendants.”
Although Ferebee’s Complaint is often unclear, liberally construed it seems to allege that
on January 30, 2018, Ferebee entered a Chick-Fil-A restaurant to receive a free breakfast about
which she learned from a promotional poster. ECF No. 1 at 1. Ferebee further avers that when
she asked the cashier “Synethia” about the promotion, she responded that “you have to purchase
something, then, you get a free breakfast.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Ferebee and Synethia argued about
the terms of the free breakfast, with Ferebee noting that “Landover Chick-Fil-A, [sic] was not
like that, you got a free breakfast, without purchasing a meal.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Ferebee then
asked to speak with the store manager. ECF No. 1 at 1. Synethia spoke to the manager and then
repeated her earlier response that Ferebee must make a purchase to receive a free breakfast. ECF
No. 1 at 1.
Still dissatisfied with this answer, Ferebee again asked to speak with the manager
“Maurice” (last name not provided), and he again repeated that the terms of the promotion
required customers to make a purchase before receiving a free breakfast. ECF No. 1 at 1.
Ferebee was a “little perturbed” with his response, and ultimately, Maurice said he would
provide Ferebee with a free breakfast without a purchase only that one time. ECF No. 1 at 1.
Plaintiff then seems to allege a conversation with Harvey, during which she noticed that Harvey
had the “cash register” in his hand, and Ferebee was concerned that Harvey planned to say that
“there were a lot of free breakfasts” and keep the money from the paid breakfasts as his profit.
See ECF No. 1 at 1.
Ferebee alleges that Defendants have defamed her character by treating her “like
everyone else in society.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Ferebee also avers that the manager, Maurice, “did
not want Plaintiff to return to the restaurant, because of rumors about Plaintiff being crazy and
on drugs.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Ferebee also notes in her “Continuation to Law Suit Claim” that
Harvey was “apologetic” and told Plaintiff that she could “come back” to the Chick-Fil-A as
much as she wanted. ECF No. 1 at 3. Because Harvey was “very apologetic,” Ferebee changed
her demand from $500 million to $5 million. ECF No. 1 at 3.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that Ferebee has not sued the proper
entity and that, even if she had, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court addresses each argument in turn.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
A. Standard of Review
Because Ferebee is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the Complaint liberally to
ensure that potentially meritorious claims proceed. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980).
That said, the Court cannot ignore a pro se plaintiff’s clear failure to allege facts setting forth a
cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990) (“The
‘special judicial solicitude’ with which a district court should view such pro se complaints does
not transform the court into an advocate. Only those questions which are squarely presented to a
court may properly be addressed.”). A court, when reviewing pro se complaints, must not
abdicate its “legitimate advisory role” to become an “advocate seeking out the strongest
arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d
1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) is properly granted when the complaint does not include sufficient factual allegations to
render the plaintiff’s claims facially plausible or permit reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the alleged misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). In
assessing whether this is so, the Court takes as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and
makes all reasonable inferences in the favor of the plaintiff. Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l Hosp.,
572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court does not credit conclusory statements or a
plaintiff’s legal conclusions, even when the plaintiff purports them to be allegations of fact. See
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79; Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). From the
facts averred, the Court must be able to infer “more than the mere possibility of misconduct”; the
complaint must contain factual allegationss that show the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Ruffin
v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 126 F. Supp. 3d 521, 526 (D. Md. 2015) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678). The Court may consider materials attached to the complaint without transforming the
motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). The Court may
also consider materials attached to a motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the
complaint and authentic. Philips, 572 F.3d at 180.
1. Failure to Sue Proper Party
Defendants first argue that Ferebee’s Complaint must be dismissed for failure to sue the
proper party because Chick-Fil-A is not a standalone legal entity, and is not the entity that owns
the restaurant located at 5502 Silver Hill Road. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit has long held that a “misnomer of a corporation in a notice, summons, . . . or other
step in a judicial proceeding is immaterial” and does not warrant dismissal where the defendant
“could not have been, or was not, misled” regarding which entity the plaintiff intended to sue.
United States v. A.H. Fischer Lumber Co., 162 F.2d 872, 873 (4th Cir. 1947). If the lawsuit
“names [the defendant] in such terms that every intelligent person understands who is meant, . . .
it has fulfilled its purpose; and courts should not put themselves in the position of failing to
recognize what is apparent to everyone else.” Id.
Ferebee lists “Chick-Fil-A” and “Owner/Operator Mr. Trevelle Harvey” as the
defendants in this lawsuit, along with the address 5502 Silver Hill Road, District Heights, MD
20747. Harvey further affirms that he is the owner of the Harvey Restaurant Group, Inc., which
is the entity that owns and operates the Chick-Fil-A franchise located at that address. ECF No.
3-1 at 10. Accordingly, Ferebee has effectively sued the proper entity. Furthermore, Defendants
were not misled as to which entity Ferebee intended to sue. Indeed, Defendants understood that
Ferebee intended to sue them based upon their prompt response to this lawsuit. Plaintiff filed her
Complaint with this Court on February 2, 2018, and Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on
February 27, 2018. See ECF No.1; ECF No. 3. Dismissal is not warranted on this ground.
Defendants next argue that Ferebee’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. To sustain a defamation action, a plaintiff must plausibly aver that: (1) the
defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person, (2) the statement was false, (3) the
defendant was legally at fault in making the statement, and (4) the plaintiff suffered harm. Doe
v. Salisbury Univ., 123 F. Supp. 3d 748, 757 (D. Md. 2015). As to the first element, a plaintiff
must specifically allege each defamatory statement. Id. A plaintiff “may not baldly allege a
broad course of conduct over a lengthy period of time and later sue on any act that occurred
during that time period.” Id. at 757–58 (quoting English Boiler & Tube, Inc. v. W.C. Rouse &
Son, Inc., 172 F.3d 862, 1999 WL 89125, at *3 (4th Cir. 1999)).
Ferebee’s Complaint fails to allege any defamatory statements made to a third person.
Instead, Ferebee generally asserts that Defendants treated her “like everyone else in society
defaming Plaintiff’s character.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Further, Ferebee states, without any additional
evidence, that the Chick-Fil-A manager Maurice “did not want Plaintiff to return to the
restaurant, because of rumors about Plaintiff being crazy and on drugs.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Devoid
of any defamatory statements alleged with specificity, Ferebee’s defamation claim must be
The Complaint also suggests that Ferebee believes that Defendants’ violated her “civil
rights,” and refers to Ferebee’s age in this context. See ECF No. 1 at 2. Liberally construed, the
Court will treat this aspect of the Complaint as an attempt to aver some type of age
discrimination claim or other similar cause of action. The Complaint, however, lacks even the
most basic facts, such as Ferebee’s actual age or any other identifying information which would
give rise to an actionable claim. See Baker v. Greyhound Bus Line, 240 F. Supp. 2d 454, 455 (D.
Md. 2003) (dismissing discrimination claim when characteristic alleged by plaintiff as basis of
discrimination was not protected); cf. Mathews v. Giant Food, Inc., 187 F. Supp. 2d 486, 488
(D. Md. 2002) (plaintiff must plead membership in a protected class). Further, the Complaint
fails to include a factual basis on which to conclude that Defendants, a private franchise and its
owner, violated Ferebee’s “civil rights.” Plaintiff’s discrimination claim therefore must be
Ferebee’s conspiracy claim likewise must be dismissed. Under Maryland law, to state a
claim for civil conspiracy, a plaintiff must show: (1) a confederation of two or more persons by
agreement or understanding, (2) some unlawful or tortious act done in furtherance of the
conspiracy, or use of unlawful or tortious means to accomplish an act not in itself illegal, and (3)
actual legal damage resulting to the plaintiff. Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 397 Md. 108, 154
(2007). Some “unlawful act [such as] a tort, breach of contract or other actionable wrong” must
be undertaken in furtherance of the conspiracy. Paccar Inc. v. Elliot Wilson Capitol Trucks LLC,
905 F. Supp. 2d 675, 696 (D. Md. 2012). Civil conspiracy is “not a separate tort capable of
independently sustaining an award of damages in the absence of other tortious injury to the
plaintiff.” Id. (quoting Haley v. Corcoran, 659 F. Supp. 2d 714, 726 (D. Md. 2009)). Here, the
conspiracy claim necessarily fails because none of Plaintiff’s substantive counts survive
Conclusion and Order
Because Ferebee has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it is on this
12th day of April, 2018, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants CHICK-FIL-A and TREVELLE HARVEY
(ECF No. 3) BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED;
The Complaint filed by Plaintiff RENEE (COG) FEREBEE (ECF No. 1); BE, and the
same hereby IS, DISMISSED;
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to
Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant;
The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
United States District Judge
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?