Matz v. Visier Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 22, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01815
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 MURIKA K. MATZ, an individual, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01815-JHC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 9 vs.

10 VISIER, INC., a foreign corporation,

11 Defendant. 12 I 13 INTRODUCTION 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 16 FRCP 12(b)(6). Dkt. # 7. The Court has considered the materials submitted by the parties in 17 support of and in opposition to the motion, the rest of the case file, and the applicable law. 18 Being fully advised, the Court GRANTS the motion. 19 II 20 21 DISCUSSION 22 When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a 23 court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Livid Holdings 24 Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005). The court must accept all 25 26 well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Wyler 1 Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). “To survive a 2 motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state 3 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 4 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 5 6 Defendant seeks dismissal of these claims: harassment (i.e., hostile work environment) 7 based on disability, harassment based on age, defamation/slander, and tortious interference with 8 business expectancy. Plaintiff concedes that the disability claim should be dismissed. Dkt. # 10 9 at 1. 10 1. Harassment Based on Age 11 12 For the reasons argued by Defendant, the complaint fails to state a claim for age-based 13 hostile work environment. The complaint alleges no such harassment; for example, it does not 14 allege any age-based comment or facts from which to infer that Defendant’s conduct affected 15 the terms or conditions of her employment. Cf. Estevez v. Fac. Club of Univ. of Wash., 129 16 Wash. App. 774, 794, 120 P.3d 578 (2005). 17 18 2. Defamation/Slander 19 For the reasons argued by Defendant, the complaint fails to state a claim for defamation. 20 It does not allege any false and defamatory statement. See Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wash. App. 21 22 250, 262, 277 P.3d 9 (2012). 23 3. Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy 24 For the reasons argued by Defendant, the complaint fails to state a claim for tortious 25 interference with business expectancy. It does not allege facts to support the first through fourth 26 1 || elements of the tort. See Greensun Group, LLC. v. City of Bellevue, 7 Wash. App. 754, 767-68, 2 || 436 P.3d. 397 (2019). Perhaps most critically, it fails to allege any act of interference. Jd. at 3 768, 71-72. 4 5 6 CONCLUSION

7 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES without 8 || prejudice Plaintiff's claims for harassment (1.e., hostile work environment) based on disability, 9 || harassment based on age, defamation/slander, and tortious interference with business 10 expectancy. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave until March 15, 2024, to file an amended 1] complaint that brings again any of the claims dismissed herein. If Plaintiff wishes to assert a 12 cause of action not asserted in her original complaint, then she will need to move for leave to 13 14 amend her pleading. 15 DATED this 22nd day of February, 2023. oh 4. Chur 17 JOHN H. CHUN 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS — Page 3 (CASE 9-92 _ev.912145_TOO)