Crawford v. Chevron Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ALEXIS CRAWFORD and BETHANY CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05114-JHC 8 MCAULEY, ORDER RE: DEFENDANT CHEVRON 9 Plaintiffs, CORPORATION’S RULE 12(C) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 10 v. 11 CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Before the Court is Defendant Chevron Corporation’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment 15 on the Pleadings. Dkt. # 33. The Court has reviewed the motion, the balance of the record, and 16 the applicable law. Being fully advised, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES 17 Plaintiffs’ claim against Chevron with prejudice. 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 1 I BACKGROUND 2 On March 16, 2023, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed their complaint. Dkt. ## 6–9. 3 Plaintiffs bring one cause of action under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), 4 Rev. Code. Wash. (RCW) 49.60.030(1)(b), against Defendants Chevron and Tristan “The Night 5 Girl.” Dkt. # 9. In December 2022, Plaintiffs “stopped at the Chevron on 4100 E. Fourth [P]lain 6 Blvd.” in Vancouver, Washington. Id. at 7. Plaintiffs allege that, while they pumped gasoline, 7 gas station employee Tristan discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their “disability of being 8 addicts.” Id. at 7; see id. (alleging Tristan said Crawford was “high off her[oi]n, meth or blues” 9 and Tristan did not “want any drug addicts” at the gas station). 10 On July 11, 2023, Chevron filed its answer. Dkt. # 31. Chevron states that it “does not 11 own, operate, or control the gas station located at 4100 E. Fourth Plain Blvd.” in Vancouver, nor 12 does it “employ Defendant Tristan ‘The Night Girl.’” Id. at 2. Instead, the gas station in 13 question “is owned, operated, and controlled by an independent retailer called Blue Goose 14 Market, III, LLC.” Id. “Chevron Products Company, a division of Chevron U.S.A.[,] merely 15 supplied Chevron-branded gasoline to the independent retailer.” Id. 16 On July 13, 2023, Chevron moved for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. # 33. Plaintiffs 17 did not respond to Chevron’s motion. See generally Dkt. 18 II 19 DISCUSSION 20 Because Plaintiffs proceed pro se, the Court liberally construes their pleadings. See 21 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). That said, “courts should not have to serve as 22 advocates for pro se litigants.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). “[I]t is 23 axiomatic that pro se litigants, whatever their ability level, are subject to the same procedural 24 requirements as other litigants.” Munoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). 1 A. Rule 12(c) legal standard 2 “After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move 3 for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The pleadings are closed once a

4 complaint and answer have been filed, assuming no counterclaims or cross-claims are asserted. 5 Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 2005). When ruling on a Rule 12(c) motion, 6 courts “must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light 7 most favorable to the non-moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 8 2009). Dismissal for failure to state a claim “is proper if there is a ‘lack of a cognizable legal 9 theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’” Conservation 10 Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 11 Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988)). 12 B. Analysis

13 Because Chevron answered the complaint and raised no counterclaims or cross-claims, 14 see Dkt. # 31, the pleadings are closed as to Chevron, and the Court may properly rule on 15 Chevron’s Rule 12(c) motion. The Court grants the motion for the following reasons. 16 First, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the motion, and the Court considers this 17 lack of opposition as an admission that the motion has merit. See LCR 7(b)(2). 18 Second, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and considering the 19 answer, Plaintiffs do not establish liability against Chevron for the WLAD claim because 20 Chevron played no role with respect to the alleged conduct. As stated in its answer, Chevron 21 does not own, operate, or control the gas station or employ Tristan. Dkt. # 31 at 2. Chevron’s 22 only apparent connection to this suit is that it supplies Chevron-branded gasoline to the

23 independent retailer, Blue Goose Market, III, LLC, that owns the gas station. Id. The complaint 24 1 presents no allegations inconsistent with these assertions in the answer. Nor do Plaintiffs oppose 2 the motion or seek leave to amend their complaint. 3 C. Leave to amend

4 If a court determines that dismissal is warranted, it should grant the plaintiff leave to 5 amend unless amendment is futile; that is, if it “determines that the allegation of other facts 6 consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber 7 Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986); see Saul v. United 8 States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that “[a] district court does not err in 9 denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile”). 10 Plaintiffs do not seek leave to amend their complaint. And it appears that amending 11 Plaintiffs’ complaint would be futile. There appear to be no additional factual allegations that 12 could possibly cure the complaint’s deficiencies as to Chevron because Chevron has no

13 involvement with the alleged conduct in this dispute. Chevron did not employ Tristan, nor did it 14 operate the gas station in Vancouver. Dismissing Chevron from this action with prejudice and 15 without leave to amend is proper because, as to allegations against Chevron, “the complaint 16 could not be saved by amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 17 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). And again, Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion. 18 III CONCLUSION 19 Based on the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Chevron’s motion and DISMISSES the 20 claims against Chervon with prejudice. 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 l Dated this 14th day of August, 2023. 2 3 Cok. 4. Chur 4 John H. Chun United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER RE: DEFENDANT CHEVRON CORPORATION'S RULE 12(C) MOTION FOR