Magee v. The Walt Disney Company

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 15, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-06992·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QUINCY MAGEE, Plaintiff, 19-CV-6992 (CM) -against- ORDERTO AMEND THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY; THE AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. He asserts breach of contract claims against the Walt Disney Company and theAmerican Broadcasting Company (ABC). By order dated September 26, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is,in forma pauperis.For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro sepleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a resident of Pennsylvania, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, brings this breach of contract complaint against the Walt Disney Company and ABC. Plaintiff does not

state the underlying facts giving rise to his claims but asserts that Defendants “[f]ailed to provide certification of sums, failed to provide compensation for time and expenses for cooperation, and failed to fulfill fiduciary duty.” (ECF No. 1, 4.) Plaintiff attaches to the complaint a November 4, 2014 release agreement from his employment at ABC, andhe claims that “[t]here was an attempt to use the release in the agreement to cover attempted retaliation, attempted fraud, [and] attempted extortion.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that he “reported” the alleged violations in two earlier cases before the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.1 (Id.)

1 In 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court against the United States of America, in which he sought damages for injuries that occurred in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington D.C. See Magee v. United States, ECF 1:17-CV-5892,2 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2017). Plaintiff described multiple unrelated incidents, including those occurringwhile he participated in programs at Harvard and being the victim of unauthorized surveillance by the NYPD and the City of New York. Plaintiff asserted that FBI agents in Boston and New York were reluctant to investigate his claims and attempted to deter him from filing a lawsuit. On October 4, 2017, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s allegations were irrational and dismissed the complaint as frivolous. ECF 1:17-CV-5892, 4. In 2017, Plaintiff also sued the Walt Disney Company and Harvard University in the District of Columbia. See Magee v. The Walt Disney Co., No. 17-CV-2842 (UNA) (D.D.C.Feb. 26, 2018).On February 26, 2018, that court dismissed the action because the complaint failed to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the action appeared to be brought by Renaissance MediaProductions, which as an artificial entity could not proceed without counsel.See id., ECF No. 3. DISCUSSION Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all

well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). But the Court need not accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the court must determine whether those facts make it plausible –not merely possible –that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. Here, Plaintiff essentially asserts that Defendants breacheda contract,but hedoes not allege any facts in support of his claim. He fails to provide a short and plain statement showing that he is entitled to relief. In light of Plaintiff’s pro sestatus, the Court grants him leave to submit an amended complaint detailing his breach of contract claim. Should Plaintiff choose to

amend his complaint, he must provide well-pleaded factual allegations showing that Defendants breached a contract and that he is entitled to relief. LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to detail his breach of contract claim. In the statement of claim, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant named in the amended complaint. Plaintiff is also directed to provide the addresses for any named defendants. To the greatest extent possible, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must: a) give the names and titles of all relevant persons; b) describe all relevant events, stating the facts that support Plaintiff’s case including what each defendant did or failed to do; c) give the dates and times of each relevant event or, if not known, the approximate date and time of each relevant event; d) give the location where each relevant event occurred; e) describe how each defendant’s acts or omissions violated Plaintiff’s rights and describe the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and f) state what relief Plaintiff seeks from the Court, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief. Essentially, the body of Plaintiff’s amended complaint must tell the Court: who violated his federally protected rights; what facts show that his federally protected rights were violated; when such violationoccurred; where such violationoccurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint,any facts or claims that Plaintiff wishes to maintain must be included in the amended complaint.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Magee v. The Walt Disney Company, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Magee v. The Walt Disney Company (Magee v. The Walt Disney Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)