United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
KENLY KIYA KATO, Magistrate Judge.
On November 3, 2014, plaintiff Krista Dandridge-Barnett, who is at liberty, filed a Complaint alleging multiple civil rights claims against defendant Barnes and Noble. However, the Court finds plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim and thus that dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is warranted. However, the Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the deficiencies discussed herein.
Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff desires to pursue this action, she is ORDERED to file a First Amended Complaint remedying the deficiencies discussed below within 28 days of the service date of this Order.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff's claims arise out of an incident that occurred at Barnes and Noble (the "Store") in Temecula, California on February 13, 2014. See Compl. at 10. Plaintiff purchased a bag of chips and sat down in the cafe area. Id . She then went to the restroom and walked outside of the Store in order to catch a bus. Id . As Plaintiff walked out into the parking lot, she was approached by Assistant Manager Corey ("Corey") and Store Manager Nathan ("Nathan"). According to the Complaint, Corey and Nathan accused Plaintiff of "not purchasing anything from the store whilst also stating that since [Plaintiff] carried [her] bags in the store without them believing that [Plaintiff] had purchased anything at the time, and [Plaintiff's] proceeding to use the restroom... they believed they had a right to tailgate." Id . at 10-11. Plaintiff alleges she was "singled out, humiliated, embarrassed, etc. by Barnes and Noble." Id . at 11.
Plaintiff further alleges Corey and Nathan later apologized to her for falsely accusing her of shoplifting and the Store offered "remedy" in the form of a gift card. Id . at 11-12. Plaintiff states she had further communications with Store employees in an attempt to reach a "fair and equitable financial resolution, " but that such efforts ultimately failed. Id . at 11-14.
While not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981, 1983, 1985(3), and 1986.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Ninth Circuit has held "[a] trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)" and has also stated "[s]uch a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief." Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. , 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Wong v. Bell , 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981)).
In considering whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all of the material factual allegations in it. Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the court need not accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig. , 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although a complaint need not include detailed factual allegations, it "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Cook v. Brewer , 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A claim is facially plausible when it "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id . (citation and internal ...