Bates v. Laurel Grove Baptist Church, Inc. et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 07/06/2017. (dvanm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

REV.

DR.

GEORGE A.

BATES,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.

V.

1:17-cv-00593

LAUREL GROVE BAPTIST

CHURCH,

INC.,

et al..

Defendants.

Menorandiam Opinion

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff s Motion to

Remand to the Circuit Court in Prince William County for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a

The

claim.

Court

first

considers

Plaintiff's

Motion

to

Remand.

Plaintiff originally filed this case in Prince William County

Circuit Court on April 26, 2017. Defendants Patricia Barbour and
James E.

24,

Scott were served with process on May 3,

2017,

Defendants

federal

court

because

Plaintiff's

there

is

on

Barbour

the

basis

claim

supplemental

and
of

arises

Scott

federal
under

jurisdiction

for

removed

2017.

this

question
42

U.S.C.

the

state

On May

case

to

jurisdiction
§

law

1981

and

claims.

Both Defendant Barbour and Defendant Scott consented to removal.
At the time of removal.

Defendant Laurel Grove Baptist Church

had not yet been served with process.

Defendant Laurel Grove

Baptist Church was served with process on May 26, 2017. In his
motion to

remand.

Plaintiff argues

that

removal was

improper

because Defendant Laurel Grove Baptist Church had not consented

to removal.

This argument is without merit because Defendants

Barbour and Scott satisfied the requirement of the law, which is

that all served defendants consent to the removal action.

28

U.S.C. § 1446 (2011); see also May v. Board of Educ. Of Prince

George^ s County, 713 F.3d 735, 742 (4th Cir. 2013). Thus, this
case was properly removed to federal court on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction.

Next,

the Court considers Defendants'

pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6)

motions to dismiss

for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.

This case is about a disbarred

attorney's attempt to charge a church for legal services. The
Court

takes

judicial

notice

of

the

fact

that

Plaintiff

was

licensed to practice law in Virginia until 2005 when he was
disbarred

after

Defendant

Laurel

being

convicted

Grove

Baptist

of

a

Church,

felony.
is

a

The
modest

church.
sized

African-American congregation in Prince William County pastored

by Defendant James E.
trustee at the church.

Scott.

Defendant Patricia Barbour is a

Plaintiff and Defendant Barbour have been

friends

since

the

1970s,

and

Defendant

Barbour

would

occasionally hire Plaintiff to provide legal services for the
church, but Plaintiff was not employed by the church. The church
employed Michael Hadeed, Jr. as its general counsel.

In April or May of 2016,
Plaintiff

about

some

Defendant Barbour talked with

problems

the

church

building contract for its new sanctuary.
the name

of the architect

that

the

was

having

on

a

Plaintiff recognized

church was using,

and he

asked Defendant Barbour about the building contract the church

had signed with the architect.
told

Defendant

Barbour

to

Plaintiff alleges that he then

send

him

all

of

the

documentation

associated with signing the building contract. In December 2016,
Defendant

Barbour

sent

Plaintiff

Over the next several months.

contract
occasions.

with

both

the

requested

documentation.

Plaintiff discussed the building

Defendants

Barbour

and

Scott

on

multiple

Plaintiff then asked the church to pay for his legal

services.

In February 2017, Plaintiff sent Defendants a bill for his
legal fees although Plaintiff did not have a written contract
with

Defendants.

The

church

time

consulting

on

the

refused

building

to pay

contract.

Plaintiff

In

for

March

his

2017,

Plaintiff had a heart attack, which he alleges was caused by the

stress of not being paid for his legal services. In April 2017,
Plaintiff sued Defendants, arguing that Defendants discriminated

against him by not paying him because he is African-American
while

Defendants

did

, pay

Caucasian

or

Caucasian-looking

professionals. The Court construes Plaintiff's pro se Complaint
to present three causes of action:
U.S.C. § 1981;
intentional

(2)

or

(1) a claim for violating 42

a quantum meruit claim; and (3)

negligent

Defendants moved to

infliction

dismiss

for

of

failure

a claim for

emotional

to

state a

distress.
claim upon

which relief may be granted.

A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint.

See Republican Party of N.C.

v.

Cir.

must

1992).

The

complaint

Martin,

980 F.2d 943,

provide

a

short

952

and

(4th

plain

statement showing that the pleader has a plausible claim and is
entitled to relief.

556 U.S.

662,

679

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

8(a)(2); Ashcroft v.

Iqbal,

(2009). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,

the court must accept all well-pled facts as true and construe

those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. at
678.

The

court

inferences,

Markets,
Cir.

does

not

unreasonable

Inc.

v.

J.D.

accept

as

conclusions,

true
or

Associates Ltd.,

any

''unwarranted

arguments."

213

F.3d 175,

E.

180

Shore

(4th

2000).

First,

Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief under 42

U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination in making or enforcing a
contract.

the

To state a

following

claim under §

elements:

(1)

he

1981,

belongs

a

plaintiff must prove

to

a

racial

minority

group; (2) defendant intended to discriminate against plaintiff
on the basis of race;

and

(3)

the discrimination relates to a

contractual relationship covered under § 1981. See Pitts v. U.S.

Dep't of Hous.

& Urban Dev.,

2013); Hewlett v.
553-JAG,
claim

§

relationship.
476

Permanent Gen.

2016 WL 3919460,

under

546 F. App'x 118, 120

1981

Assurance Corp., No. 3:15-CV-

at *2

must

(E.D.

identify

Domino's Pizza,

(4th Cir.

Va.

an

July 20,

impaired

Inc. v. McDonald,

2016).

A

contractual

546 U.S.

470,

(2006).

Here,

Plaintiff

cannot

identify

an

impaired

contractual

relationship because he did not have a contract with Defendants
to

provide

them

legal

services.

More

importantly,

however.

Plaintiff is not licensed to provide legal services because he

was

disbarred,

unauthorized

and for
practice

him to provide
of

law.

legal

Further,

services

Plaintiff

is

the

does

not

plausibly state how a predominantly African-American church and
two African-American individuals employed by the church intended

to discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of his race as an

African-American. Lastly, Plaintiff does not present a similarly
situated person outside the protected group who received more
favorable

Mr.

treatment.

Hadeed,

Plaintiff

attempts

but the comparison fails

to

compare

because Mr.

himself

to

Hadeed is a

licensed attorney unlike Plaintiff. Accordingly, Mr.

Hadeed and

Plaintiff are not similarly situated. Thus,
state a

claim under §

Plaintiff fails to

1981.

Second, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted for

quantum meruit.

To recover on a

meruit theory, a plaintiff must prove:
benefit

on

the

defendant;

(2)

quantum

(1) that he conferred a

that

the

defendant

knowingly

accepted; and (3) under circumstances making it inequitable for
the

defendant

value.

See

to

retain

Raymond,

the

Colesar,

benefit

without

Glaspy

paying

& Huss,

P.C.

for

v.

its

Allied

Capital Corp., 961 F.2d 489, 491 {4th Cir. 1992).

Here, Plaintiff cannot prove that he provided a benefit to
Defendants

under

circumstances

for

which

he

could

expect

payment. Plaintiff was not licensed to provide legal services,
and

for

him

to

provide

practice of law,
§ 54.1-3904
authorized

misdemeanor.").

services

is

the

which is a criminal offense.

(''Any
or

legal

person

licensed

who

practices
be

Plaintiff

Thus,

shall

has

no

See Va.

law

guilty

unauthorized

Code

without
of

claim

a

for

being

Class
legal

1

fees

under a quantum meruit theory.

Third,
negligent

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for intentional or
infliction

of

emotional

distress.

To

recover

intentional infliction of emotional distress claim,

must

prove

with

clear

and

convincing

evidence

wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless;

a

that:

on

an

plaintiff

(1)

the

(2) the conduct

was outrageous or intolerable;

(3) there is a causal connection

between the wrongful conduct and emotional distress; and (4) the

resulting

emotional

S.E.2d 160, 162

distress

is

severe.

Russo

v.

White,

400

(1991) . A defendant may be found liable only if

his wrongful conduct is ^''beyond all possible bounds of decency,

and to be regarded as atrocious,
civilized

community."

Id.

A

and utterly intolerable in a

non-client's

refusal

to

pay

an

unlicensed attorney's legal fees does not satisfy this rigorous
standard. Thus,

Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim

for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Likewise,
infliction

of

Plaintiff

fails

to

emotional

state a

distress.

The

claim for

standard

for

negligent
negligent

infliction of emotional distress is even more rigorous than the
standard

for

intentional

infliction

of

emotional

distress

because the plaintiff must also prove a physical

injury along

with

Sissler,

severe

S.E.2d 463,

emotional

466

distress.

(1990).

See

Myseros

v.

387

The plaintiff's physical injury must be

the natural result of fright or shock proximately caused by the
defendant's alleged negligence.
Corp.,

523 S.E.2d 826,

Here,

impact

Plaintiff

proximately

834

argues that he suffered a
sufficient

facts

Columbia/HCA Healthcare

(2000).

cannot

caused

Delk v.

prove

by

that

he

Defendants'

heart attack,

to prove that

his

heart

suffered a

physical

conduct.

Plaintiff

but he does not plead
attack was

a

natural

result of fright or shock from Defendants'

legal

fees.

Thus,

Plaintiff

has

no

failure to pay his

claim

for

negligent

infliction of emotional distress.

For the foregoing reasons,
was properly removed to federal
failed

to

state

a

the Court finds that this case
court,

claim upon which

but that

Plaintiff has

relief may be

granted and

this case should be dismissed. An appropriate order shall issue.

CLAUDE M.

HILTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Alexandria, Virginia

July (p , 2017