United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS RE: ECF NO. 3
TIGAR United States District Judge.
the court is Defendant Target Corporation’s Motion to
Dismiss. ECF No 3. The Court will grant the motion as to the
Plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional
distress with prejudice; grant the motion as to
Plaintiff’s claims for intentional infliction of
emotional distress and defamation with leave to amend; and
deny the motion as to all remaining claims.
Curtisha Holden, who is appearing pro se, claims that she was
injured by Defendant Target’s loss prevention employee
after she was caught shoplifting at a Target store in
Emeryville, California. Her complaint includes the following
I was caught shoplifting on [blank space] 2016 and I was
escorted to the back. They asked me to go into the room
without my sons (loss prevention). I told them that I
can’t leave my sons with someone that I don’t
know and the loss prevention male who was working that day
grabbed me by my arm and put me in a armhold [sic] bar. He
pushed me in the room and the other guard was calling me a
bitch and saying CPS was going to take my children. The loss
prevention officer who had my arm pulled my arm all the way
up my back and threatened to break my arm and called me a
bitch in front of my son. I was screaming for help. Other
employees near the room [were] laughing. I was physically
hurt and I am hurt still today. This incident [occurred] in
ECF No. 1-1, Ex. A at 6.
filed a civil action in Alameda County Superior Court against
Defendants Target Corporation and John Does 1-25. ECF No.
1-1, Ex. A at 2. Her complaint alleges the following causes
of action: (1) negligence, (2) negligent infliction of
emotional distress, (3) intentional tort, (4) intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and (5) defamation. ECF No.
1-1, Ex. A at 5-6. Holden alleges injuries in the form of
“hospital and medical expenses, ” “general
damage, ” “emotional distress, ”
“ongoing pain in right arm, ” “restricted
movement in right arm, ” and a “mental change in
[her] sons [sic] behavior.” Id. Holden seeks
compensatory and punitive damages. Id.
Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,
000, exclusive of interest and costs. ECF Nos. 1, 12.
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the
legal sufficiency of the claims in the complaint. Navarro
v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). In
analyzing a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true all
factual allegations in the complaint and draws all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Retail Prop.
Trust v. United Bd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am.,
768 F.3d 938, 945 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court also liberally
construes the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Zichko
v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001).
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In the Ninth
Circuit, “[i]f there are two alternative explanations,
one advanced by defendant and the other advanced by
plaintiff, both of which are plausible, plaintiff’s
complaint survives a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff’s complaint may be dismissed only when
defendant’s plausible alternative explanation is so
convincing that plaintiff’s explanation is
implausible.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d
1202, 1216 (9th Cir.2011) (emphasis in original).
moves the Court to dismiss all claims against it for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 3. ...