Barbieri v. Wynn/Las Vegas
Filing
17
ORDER ORDER that the Clerk of the Court shall file the 16 Fourth Amended Complaint and shall issue Summons to Defendant and deliver the same to the U.S. Marshal for service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 1/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
ANTHONY RUBEN ALDO BARBIERI,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WYNN/LAS VEGAS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Case No. 2:12-cv-00429-MMD-CWH
ORDER
12
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (#16), filed on January
13
15, 2013.
14
BACKGROUND
15
On March 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma
16
Pauperis (#1). On November 8, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in
17
Forma Pauperis and ordered the Clerk of the Court to file Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Order #7.
18
In addition, the Court ordered that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and granted
19
Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint correcting the noted deficiencies. On
20
December 17, 2012 and December 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed Amended Complaints #12-13, which
21
the Court ordered dismissed without prejudice. See Order #14. Plaintiff was given thirty (30)
22
days to file another amended complaint correcting the noted deficiencies. On January 15, 2013,
23
Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Complaint (#16), which the Court will now screen.
24
DISCUSSION
25
I.
Screening the Amended Complaint
26
Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a
27
complaint pursuant to § 1915(a). Specifically, federal courts are given the authority dismiss a
28
case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may
1
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
2
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a
3
nonexistent legal interest or delusional factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-
4
28 (1989). Moreover, “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged
5
rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
6
noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
7
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a
8
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A complaint should be
9
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
10
facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d
11
791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law.
12
See Chappel v. Laboratory Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000).
13
A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing
14
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley,
15
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it
16
demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
17
of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
18
286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the
19
complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
20
Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do
21
not suffice. Id. at 678. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than
22
formal pleading drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curium).
23
When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to
24
amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face
25
of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United
26
States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
27
28
The Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an amended complaint
complete. Local Rule 15-1 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without
2
1
reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint
2
supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once
3
plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in this
4
case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, each claim and the involvement of the defendant
5
must be sufficiently alleged.
6
A.
7
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil
Diversity Jurisdiction
8
actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000”
9
and where the matter is between “citizens of different states.” Plaintiff and the Defendants
10
appear to be Nevada citizens so there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case.
11
B.
12
As a general matter, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that
Federal Question Jurisdiction
13
power authorized by the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004).
14
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil
15
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A case ‘arises
16
under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication
17
of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican
18
Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd.
19
v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). The presence or absence of
20
federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc.
21
v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal
22
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly
23
pleaded complaint.” Id.
24
In the Fourth Amended Complaint #16, Plaintiff alleges violations of Title VII of the
25
Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and violation of the Family Medical
26
Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. Accordingly, this action is a civil action for which this
27
Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that United States district
28
courts “shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
3
1
treaties of the United States.” Further, Title VII provides, “[e]ach United States district court . . .
2
shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). The Court
3
will now determine whether Plaintiff provided sufficient information to state a claim upon which
4
relief can be granted.
5
C.
6
Plaintiff alleges sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. He attached
Title VII Claims
7
the Notice of Suit Rights letter he received from the EEOC dated on December 16, 2011 and
8
subsequently filed this action within 90 days. Thus, it appears Plaintiff exhausted his
9
administrative remedies.
10
In order to put forth a prima facie case for hostile work environment in violation of Title
11
VII, a plaintiff must show that (a) he was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
12
nature, (b) that conduct was unwelcome, and (c) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive
13
to alter the conditions of his employment and created an abusive work environment. See
14
Vasquez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff alleges that he was
15
sexually harassed by male employees through unwanted touching and verbal behavior, which
16
was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. As a result,
17
Plaintiff has stated sufficient facts to proceed with a hostile work environment claim.
18
In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must
19
demonstrate that (1) he engaged in an activity protected under Title VII; (2) his employer
20
subjected him to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link exists between the
21
protected activity and the adverse employment action. Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d
22
802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). With respect to the first element, an employee has engaged in a
23
protected act if he (1) has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this
24
subchapter; or (2) has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an
25
investigation, proceeding, or hearing. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a) (2006); see also Thomas, 379 F.3d
26
at 811. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to several adverse employment actions including
27
being denied promotional and transfer opportunities that less experienced employees received in
28
retaliation for filed a charge with the EEOC on November 15, 2010. Taking these allegations as
4
1
true, Plaintiff has stated sufficient facts for a retaliation claim under Title VII.
2
D.
3
FMLA prohibits interference with an employee’s right to take leave under 29 U.S.C. §
FMLA Claim
4
2601, et seq. Section 2615(a) prohibits conduct that interferes with an employee’s exercise of his
5
rights under the FMLA or retaliation in the form of adverse employment action for requesting or
6
taking FMLA. Section 2617 permits an employee to bring a civil action to enforce FMLA rights.
7
In order to prove a violation of the FMLA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant either (a)
8
interfered with the exercise of his rights under the FMLA, or (b) retaliated against the plaintiff
9
for “opposing any practice made unlawful by [the] subchapter.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 2615(a).
10
Regulations adopted by the Department of Labor to enforce the FMLA interpret “interference” to
11
include “not only refusing to authorize FMLA leave, but discouraging an employee from using
12
such leave.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b). Furthermore, “employers cannot use the taking of FMLA
13
leave as a negative factor in employment actions” under 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c). See also Xin
14
Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125, 1133 (9th Cir.2003). Employers interfere with an
15
employee’s rights under FMLA by “discouraging an employee from using such leave.” Id. at
16
1134. “[A]ttaching negative consequences to the exercise of protected rights surely tends to chill
17
an employee’s willingness to exercise those rights: Employees are, understandably, less likely to
18
exercise their FMLA leave rights if they can expect to be fired or otherwise disciplined for doing
19
so.” Bachelder v. America West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112, 1124 (9th Cir.2001) (internal
20
citations omitted).
21
To establish a prima facie claim for retaliation in violation of FMLA, a plaintiff must
22
establish that he engaged in activity protected under FMLA and that a causal connection existed
23
between the employee’s activity and the adverse action. Here, Plaintiff alleges he was granted
24
FMLA leave, but it was subsequently denied, he had to resubmit his paperwork, and Defendant
25
retaliated against him. Taking these allegations as true, Plaintiff has stated sufficient facts to
26
proceed with a claim for relief under the FMLA.
27
Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,
28
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the Fourth Amended
5
1
Complaint (#16) and shall issue Summons to Defendant(s) and deliver the same to the U.S.
2
Marshal for service. Plaintiff shall have twenty days in which to furnish the U.S. Marshal with
3
the required Form USM-285. Within twenty days after receiving from the U.S. Marshal a copy
4
of the Form USM-285, showing whether service has been accomplished, Plaintiff must file a
5
notice with the Court identifying whether Defendant(s) was served. If Plaintiff wishes to have
6
service again attempted on an unserved Defendant(s), a motion must be filed with the Court
7
identifying the unserved Defendant(s) and specifying a more detailed name and/or address for
8
said Defendant(s), or whether some other manner of service should be attempted. Pursuant to
9
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service must be accomplished within 120
10
11
days from the date this order is entered.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, from this point forward, Plaintiff shall serve upon
12
Defendant(s) or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon the attorney(s), a copy of every
13
pleading motion or other document submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall
14
include, with the original papers submitted for filing, a certificate stating that a true and correct
15
copy of the document was mailed to Defendant(s) or counsel for Defendant(s). The Court may
16
disregard any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with
17
the Clerk, and any paper received by a District Judge, Magistrate Judge, or the Clerk that fails to
18
include a certificate of service.
19
DATED this 29th day of January, 2013.
20
21
22
___________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?