1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SABRINA AFIFI, Case No. 25-cv-07471-AMO
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS
10 HAYATT HOUSE, Re: Dkt. No. 15 Defendant. 11
12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Hyatt Corporation dba Hyatt House San Ramon’s 14 (erroneously sued as Hayatt House) motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Plaintiff Sabrina 15 Afifi. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, 16 the hearing set for November 13, 2025, is VACATED. See Civil L.R. 7-6, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 78(b). 17 Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal 18 authority, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss for the following reasons. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Afifi initiated this lawsuit by complaint filed on September 4, 2025, seeking remedies for 21 unlawful discrimination. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Afifi, a “white mother of four,” alleges that 22 she visited Hyatt House San Ramon “to complete a routine transaction” on an unspecified date. 23 Compl. at 2. During the transaction, “staff made derogatory and class-based assumptions” about 24 Afifi, including referring to her as “ghetto” and “implying” that she was financially unstable and 25 likely to commit fraud. Compl. at 3. Afifi brings claims for (1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 – 26 Discrimination in the right to contract; (2) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a – Discrimination in 27 places of public accommodation; (3) Violation of California Business & Professions Code 1 (5) Negligent Hiring, Training, or Supervision; (6) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and 2 Fair Dealing; (7) Violation of California Civil Code § 51 – Unruh Civil Rights Act; and 3 (8) Defamation – Slander. Id. 4 Defendants move to dismiss the action in its entirety for failure to state a claim. See Dkt. 5 No. 15. Afifi did not file a response to Defendants’ motion. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 “based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a 9 cognizable legal theory.” Godecke v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 937 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2019) 10 (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). The allegations 11 in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. 12 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must demonstrate “facial plausibility” 13 by pleading “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 14 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 15 When the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings 16 liberally and . . . afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 17 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). 18 Of the several causes of action, only the first two give rise to federal question jurisdiction, 19 Afifi’s asserted basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 1 at 3 (citing 28 20 U.S.C. § 1331). The Court briefly analyzes the sufficiency of allegations as to the claims 21 underlying its subject matter jurisdiction and, finding that Afifi fails to plausibly allege a claim 22 under either federal statute, declines to review the sufficiency of the other causes of action. 23 Underlying Afifi’s first cause of action, Section 1981 prohibits discrimination in the 24 making and enforcement of contracts on account of race. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981. To state a 25 Section 1981 claim, a plaintiff must allege “(1) [she] is a member of a racial group, (2) some 26 contractual right with defendant was impaired, (3) defendant intentionally discriminated against 27 [her] based on race, and (4) [her] race was a but-for cause of the contractual impairment.” Ray v. 1 Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327, 341 (2020); Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. 2 Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 391 (1982)). For a Section 1981 claim, “a plaintiff bears the burden 3 of showing that race was a but-for cause of its injury.” Comcast, 589 U.S. at 333; see also 4 Williams v. Tobener, No. C 16-02209 SBA, 2016 WL 5235039, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2016) 5 (“To plead intentional discrimination, ‘plaintiff cannot merely invoke his race in the course of a 6 claim’s narrative and automatically be entitled to pursue relief. Rather, plaintiff must allege some 7 facts that demonstrate that race was the reason for defendant’s actions.’ ” (citation omitted)). 8 Here, Afifi does not allege that she suffered discrimination because of her race. She 9 alleges, instead, that she faced mistreatment based on her assumed financial instability. See 10 Compl. at 4. She complains that staff acted on “discriminatory stereotypes tied to perceived 11 socioeconomic status and class.” Id. Because she complains of mistreatment due to her perceived 12 economic status, and not because of her race, Afifi fails to state a claim under Section 1981. The 13 Court must dismiss the first cause of action. 14 Underlying Afifi’s second cause of action, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 15 provides: “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, 16 facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as 17 defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, 18 or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a). “[T]he overriding purpose of Title II [was] to [re]move 19 the daily affront and humiliation involved in discriminatory denials of access to facilities 20 ostensibly open to the general public.” Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298, 307-08 (1969) (quotation 21 omitted). 22 Here, for the same reasons Afifi’s allegations regarding discrimination in the right to 23 contract fails, her allegations regarding discrimination in places of public accommodation fail. 24 Afifi alleges that she faced adverse treatment based on “socioeconomic status” or “perceived 25 poverty,” Compl. at 5, not her “race, color, religion, or national origin.” Because she does not 26 allege discrimination based on a legally-protected category, the Court must dismiss the second 27 cause of action as well. 1 The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining claims. 2 |} See 28 U.S.C. §
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SABRINA AFIFI, Case No. 25-cv-07471-AMO
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS
10 HAYATT HOUSE, Re: Dkt. No. 15 Defendant. 11
12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Hyatt Corporation dba Hyatt House San Ramon’s 14 (erroneously sued as Hayatt House) motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Plaintiff Sabrina 15 Afifi. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, 16 the hearing set for November 13, 2025, is VACATED. See Civil L.R. 7-6, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 78(b). 17 Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal 18 authority, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss for the following reasons. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Afifi initiated this lawsuit by complaint filed on September 4, 2025, seeking remedies for 21 unlawful discrimination. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Afifi, a “white mother of four,” alleges that 22 she visited Hyatt House San Ramon “to complete a routine transaction” on an unspecified date. 23 Compl. at 2. During the transaction, “staff made derogatory and class-based assumptions” about 24 Afifi, including referring to her as “ghetto” and “implying” that she was financially unstable and 25 likely to commit fraud. Compl. at 3. Afifi brings claims for (1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 – 26 Discrimination in the right to contract; (2) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a – Discrimination in 27 places of public accommodation; (3) Violation of California Business & Professions Code 1 (5) Negligent Hiring, Training, or Supervision; (6) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and 2 Fair Dealing; (7) Violation of California Civil Code § 51 – Unruh Civil Rights Act; and 3 (8) Defamation – Slander. Id. 4 Defendants move to dismiss the action in its entirety for failure to state a claim. See Dkt. 5 No. 15. Afifi did not file a response to Defendants’ motion. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 “based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a 9 cognizable legal theory.” Godecke v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 937 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2019) 10 (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). The allegations 11 in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. 12 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must demonstrate “facial plausibility” 13 by pleading “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 14 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 15 When the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings 16 liberally and . . . afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 17 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). 18 Of the several causes of action, only the first two give rise to federal question jurisdiction, 19 Afifi’s asserted basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 1 at 3 (citing 28 20 U.S.C. § 1331). The Court briefly analyzes the sufficiency of allegations as to the claims 21 underlying its subject matter jurisdiction and, finding that Afifi fails to plausibly allege a claim 22 under either federal statute, declines to review the sufficiency of the other causes of action. 23 Underlying Afifi’s first cause of action, Section 1981 prohibits discrimination in the 24 making and enforcement of contracts on account of race. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981. To state a 25 Section 1981 claim, a plaintiff must allege “(1) [she] is a member of a racial group, (2) some 26 contractual right with defendant was impaired, (3) defendant intentionally discriminated against 27 [her] based on race, and (4) [her] race was a but-for cause of the contractual impairment.” Ray v. 1 Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327, 341 (2020); Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. 2 Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 391 (1982)). For a Section 1981 claim, “a plaintiff bears the burden 3 of showing that race was a but-for cause of its injury.” Comcast, 589 U.S. at 333; see also 4 Williams v. Tobener, No. C 16-02209 SBA, 2016 WL 5235039, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2016) 5 (“To plead intentional discrimination, ‘plaintiff cannot merely invoke his race in the course of a 6 claim’s narrative and automatically be entitled to pursue relief. Rather, plaintiff must allege some 7 facts that demonstrate that race was the reason for defendant’s actions.’ ” (citation omitted)). 8 Here, Afifi does not allege that she suffered discrimination because of her race. She 9 alleges, instead, that she faced mistreatment based on her assumed financial instability. See 10 Compl. at 4. She complains that staff acted on “discriminatory stereotypes tied to perceived 11 socioeconomic status and class.” Id. Because she complains of mistreatment due to her perceived 12 economic status, and not because of her race, Afifi fails to state a claim under Section 1981. The 13 Court must dismiss the first cause of action. 14 Underlying Afifi’s second cause of action, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 15 provides: “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, 16 facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as 17 defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, 18 or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a). “[T]he overriding purpose of Title II [was] to [re]move 19 the daily affront and humiliation involved in discriminatory denials of access to facilities 20 ostensibly open to the general public.” Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298, 307-08 (1969) (quotation 21 omitted). 22 Here, for the same reasons Afifi’s allegations regarding discrimination in the right to 23 contract fails, her allegations regarding discrimination in places of public accommodation fail. 24 Afifi alleges that she faced adverse treatment based on “socioeconomic status” or “perceived 25 poverty,” Compl. at 5, not her “race, color, religion, or national origin.” Because she does not 26 allege discrimination based on a legally-protected category, the Court must dismiss the second 27 cause of action as well. 1 The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining claims. 2 |} See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 3 || I. CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The 5 || Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend. Within 30 days of this order, Afifi may 6 || file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies discussed in this order. Afifi may not add new 7 claims or parties without leave of Court or stipulation of Defendant. Afifi may not incorporate 8 material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in 9 accordance with this Order in the time provided will result in dismissal of this case. 10 To aid in the preparation of her amended complaint, Afifi is encouraged to contact the 11 Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk — a free service for pro se litigants — by calling (415) 782- 12 8982 to make an appointment to obtain legal assistance from a licensed attorney. More 13 information about the program is available online at the Court’s website at 14 || https://cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/jdc-legal-help-center-san-francisco-oakland- 3 15 courthouses. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 17 Dated: November 3, 2025 18 - CMaceh Melle ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28