Tran v. Coty Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER - 22 Motion deemed moot; 18 Motion deemed moot and granting 20 Motion to Dismiss. The clerk is directed to close these cases. Signed by Senior Judge Malcolm J. Howard on 12/13/2011. (Heath, D.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION DINH TRAN, Plaintiff, 5:10-CV-431-H v. COTY, INC., Defendant. DINH TRAN, Plaintiff, 5:11-CV-114-H v. COTY, INC., Defendant. ORDER These consolidated matters are before motions to dismiss filed by the defendant, In reviewing these matters, the Coty, court Inc. on the ("Coty"). the court has found that these two matters involve the same parties and the complaints in the two matters are virtually identical. Purportedly in response to defendant's Justice. motions to dismiss, plaintiff filed a Motion for These matters are ripe for adjudication. The court has carefully reviewed the matters and finds that plaintiff's complaints should be dismissed in their entirety for the following reasons. I. Discrimination Claims First, as to any claims of discrimination, plaintiff failed to include discrimination in his administrative charge with the EEOC, leaving this over those claims. court without On the form, subject matter jurisdiction he only selected retaliation. "Only those discrimination claims stated in the initial charge, those reasonably related to the original complaint, and those developed by reasonable investigation of the original complaint may be maintained in a subsequent Title VII lawsuit." Techs. ). Applications & Servo Co., 80 F.3d 954, 963 Evans v. (4th Cir. Therefore any claims of discrimination are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. II. Retaliation Claims A federal district court confronted with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should view the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Ibarra V. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474 2 (4th Cir. 1997). The intent of 12 (b) (6) Edwards v. complaint. Cir. Rule 1999) A surrounding is the facts, 980 F.2d 943, facts merits the 952 consistent Id. suff iciency 178 F.3d 231, of 243 of claim, a a (4th or (quoting Republican (4th Cir. 1992)). the Party v. "[O]nce a claim has it may be supported by showing any set with the Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, "[A] the Rule 12 (b) (6) motion" 'does not resolve contests been stated adequately, of test City of Goldsboro, applicability of defenses.'" Martin, to allegations 127 in the complaint." S. Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007). complaint need not 'make a case' against a defendant or 'forecast claim." evidence element' of the Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 349 (4th (quoting Iodice v. United States, 289 2002)). of Chao v. Cir. 2005) (4th Cir. sufficient to Rivendell Woods, Rule Procedure provides 8 prove the an Federal F.3d 270, Rules "for simplicity in pleading that of 281 Civil intends to give little more than notice to the defendant of the plaintiff's claims and those claims Retirement 2007) . that insofar Sys. of until as LA v. after discovery they rely on Hunter, 477 F.3d any challenge Teachers' facts." 162, to 170 (4th Cir. A complaint is generally sufficient if its "'allegations are detailed and respond.'" Miller, defers Id. Federal informative enough to enable (quoting Practice 5 and Charles Alan Procedure, 3 the Wright ยง 1215 at defendant to Arthur R. & 193 (3d ed. 2004)). Thus, notice" of a complaint satisfies the Rules if it gives "fair the claim and "the grounds has an upon which it rests." Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964. However, a plaintiff obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief with "more than labels and conclusions." allege Twombly, facts 127 S. Ct. sufficient speculative level, accepted as true, on its face," id., The complaint must at 1965. "to raise a right to relief above the and "contain sufficient factual matter, to state a claim for relief that is plausible Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Even though this court liberally construes pro se complaints, it is not required to "accept the legal conclusions drawn from the facts. Similarly, inferences, we need unreasonable Shore Mkts., Inc. v. 175, 180 (th Cir 2000) In these J. D. not accept conclusions, Assocs., or Ltd. as true unwarranted arguments." Eastern Partnership, 213 F. 3d (citations omitted) consolidated matters, plaintiff claim upon which relief can be granted. fails to state a His allegations do not give fair notice of a claim which is plausible on its face. is difficult numerous from plaintiff's attachments to poorly decipher drafted plaintiff's complaints claims but It and it appears plaintiff is claiming retaliation in that his "problems" at Coty started after he reported some safety concerns to the 4 EEOC and the North Carolina Department became a "witness for a racial case." allege that written he was warnings retaliated against him of Plaintiff then appears to against and Labor and after he by his ultimately employer filing terminating his employment on October 5, 2009. Plainti f f' s was filed on charge of discrimination wi th the October 15, 2009, received two written warnings. alleges None of only only has jurisdiction over that which plaintiff the other warnings or the termination were alleged in the EEOC claim. court EEOC, Therefore, plaintiff's this allegations regarding the first two warnings. Plaintiff's allegations regarding the first two warnings are conclusory allegations which do not state a cognizable legal claim. It appears from plaintiff's complaint that plaintiff called Coty's hotline after receiving the first written warning, so that warning hotline call. drafted and could not have been in AS to the second warning, it is difficult for retaliation for the the complaint is poorly this court to decipher plaintiff's argument, but it appears he may have complained of a safety violation. this warning reasonable were, Plaintiff does not state what the results of but the court employee would find sees no allegations that a this written warning materially adverse. 5 Plaintiff's poorly complaints drafted anyclaim that is plausible on its face. fail to state These mere conclusory allegations are not enough to survive a Rule 12(b) (6) analysis. CONCLUSION For the are GRANTED, All other foregoing reasons, defendant's motions to dismiss and these matters are dismissed in their entirety. pending motions are deemed moot. The clerk directed to close these cases. V!J This ~ day of December 2011. Malcolm J. ward Senior United States District Judge At Greenville, NC #26 6 is

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?