Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

David Bennett v. (General Services Agency

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 6, 2012

DAVID BENNETT,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
(GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY, - REAL ESTATE DIVISION), DEFENDANT(S).

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers District United States District Court Judge

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO DISMISS

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF CITY AND ITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

United States District Court Northern District of California

16 Plaintiff David Bennett brings this civil rights action against his former employer the City and 17 County of San Francisco for race discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff brings two claims under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1981: (1) Race and Color Discrimination; and (2) Retaliation. 19 Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff has 20 failed to allege an impaired contractual right to employment. 21 Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for the 22 reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.*fn1

23 Section 1981 protects the right to make and enforce contracts without respect to race. 24 Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 474-75 (2006).*fn2 Specifically, it guarantees "[a]ll 1 persons . . . the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens." 42 2 U.S.C. § 1981(a). "[T]he term 'make and enforce contracts' includes the making, performance, 3 modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and 4 conditions of the contractual relationship." 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b). 5 In order to state a cause of action under section 1981, a plaintiff must "identify an impaired 6 contractual relationship,' under which the plaintiff has rights." Domino's Pizza, Inc., supra, 546 U.S. 7 at 476 (internal citation omitted). Plaintiff's complaint does not identify a contractual relationship 8 that was impaired by Defendant's alleged conduct. Therefore, he has failed to state a claim for an 9 impaired contractual relationship under section 1981.

10 The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

11 By no later than June 29, 2012 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint.

This Order Terminates Docket Number 13.

United States District Court California IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.