Zhang v. Boeing

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 28, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01280
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2

5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 12 AT SEATTLE 13 CHONG YU ZHANG, 14 CASE NO. C19-1280-RAJ Plaintiff, 15 ORDER GRANTING 16 EUREST BOEING, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 17 Defendants. 18

19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Compass Group USA, Inc.’s 21 (“Defendant” or “Compass Group”) motion to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Chong Yu Zhang’s 22 first amended complaint. Dkt. # 22.1 For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS 23 Defendant’s motion. 24 1 Defendant UNITED HERE Local 8 has not entered an appearance or filed a responsive 25 pleading in this action and it does not appear that they were served a copy of the amended 26 complaint. On April 27, 2020, the Court issued Plaintiff an Order to Show Cause why Defendant UNITED HERE Local 8 should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure 27 to prosecute. Dkt. # 28. ORDER - 1 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff sued his employer, Compass Group (improperly 3 identified in the original complaint as “Eurest Boeing”) alleging that they shorted his 4 wages, drove him out, and terminated him without notice. Dkt. # 1, Ex. 1 at 9. 5 Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. # 7. 6 On October 31, 2019, the Court granted the motion but gave Plaintiff leave to file an 7 amended complaint. Dkt. # 19. Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint 8 against Compass Group and added UNITED HERE Local 8 as a defendant. # 20. 9 Compass Group now moves to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to comply 10 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dkt. # 11 22. 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 A. Rule 8 14 Rule 8 requires a pleading stating a claim for relief to contain “a short and plain 15 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 16 “[E]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Id. Although courts must 17 construe pro se pleadings liberally, a plaintiff must still allege “a minimum factual and 18 legal basis for each claim so that defendants are given fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims 19 and the grounds upon which they rest.” Brazil v. United States Dep’t of the Navy, 66 20 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a pro se litigant . . . may be entitled to great 21 leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet 22 some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it 23 allegedly did wrong.”). A complaint that does not clearly and concisely describe the 24 factual allegations or provide defendants with notice of who is being sued on which 25 theory, violates Rule 8. 26 The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s amended complaint and finds that it 27 fails to comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff 19-page complaint (including 53 pages of exhibits) ORDER - 2 1 is convoluted and largely unintelligible, hindered by references to irrelevant facts and 2 conclusory allegations. Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1223 (9th Cir. 1980). The 3 Court is unable to determine what causes of action Plaintiff is asserting and how these 4 allegations are attributable to Compass Group. Martushoff v. Luvera, No. C18-1870 5 RSM, 2019 WL 2422616, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 10, 2019) (“[A] complaint properly 6 plead under Rule 8 must make clear connections between specific allegations and 7 individual defendants”). Even under a liberal construction of these claims for a pro se 8 litigant, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint violates Rule 8. 9 B. Rule 12(b)(6) 10 Plaintiff’s amended complaint also fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Fed. 11 R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This rule requires a court to assume the truth of the complaint’s 12 factual allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. 13 Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual 14 allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 15 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). 16 Plaintiff’s main allegations appear to be that (1) he was terminated on the basis of 17 his race, (2) his “GM Kris Villager” defamed him, and (3) his wages were shorted. See 18 generally Dkt. # 20. The basis for Plaintiff’s Title VII claim is not clear from the 19 amended complaint. Beyond checking the box for Title VII employment discrimination, 20 Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not allege any facts suggesting that he was terminated 21 because of his race. Nor does Plaintiff allege that other similarly situated employees 22 outside of his suspect class were treated differently, beyond a single conclusory assertion 23 that he has “never heard another coworker has [sic] similar experience.” Dkt. # 20 at 11. 24 Additionally, although only Compass Group and UNITED HERE Local 8 are 25 listed as defendants, Plaintiff repeatedly references other unidentified individuals who are 26 not parties to this action including, “manager Scott,” “manager Tim,” and “SBM manager 27 Greg.” See Dkt. # 20 at 11-17. According to Plaintiff, these individuals were involved in ORDER - 3 1 his termination, but Plaintiff does not identify how these individuals are connected to 2 Defendant or how their allegedly improper conduct is attributable to Defendant. 3 McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal where 4 Plaintiff's complaint failed to clearly explain how each defendant was implicated by the 5 plaintiff’s allegations.). 6 Plaintiff’s amended complaint does incorporate additional facts regarding his 7 defamation claim and “GM Kris Villager’s” alleged defamatory statements (Dkt. # 20 at 8 16-17), however, Ms. Villager is not a party and it is not clear from the complaint how 9 her conduct is attributable to Defendant Compass Group. Plaintiff’s wage shortage claim 10 is even more challenging to understand. Although he attaches multiple exhibits in 11 support of this case, the Court cannot determine from the amended complaint how 12 Plaintiff’s wages were allegedly shorted or how the alleged wage shortage is attributable 13 to Defendant. Applying even the most liberal standard, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible 14 claim for relief against Compass Group. Bell Atl. Corp, 550 U.S. at 556. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended 17 complaint is GRANTED. Dkt. # 22. Although a pro se litigant ordinarily must be given 18 leave to amend his or her complaint, dismissal without leave to amend is proper where “it 19 is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 20 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the Court finds that further amendment would be 21 futile. Plaintiff was previously warned that failure to state a cognizable claim for relief in 22 his amended complaint would result in dismissal with prejudice. Despite being given the 23 opportunity to address the underlying defects in his pleadings, Plaintiff’s amended 24 complaint is equally incomprehensible and fails to provide Defendant sufficient notice of 25 the nature of his claims to allow Defendant to properly respond. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. 26 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 27 ORDER - 4 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint as to Defendant Compass Group 2 USA is DISMISSED with prejudice.

3 DATED this 28th day of April, 2020. 4

5 A 6

7 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 8 United States District Judge 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER - 5