Zinnerman v. Holiday Inn & Suites

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01555
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 ANGELA ZINNERMAN, an individual, Case No. 2:22-cv-01555-GMN-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 HOLIDAY INN & SUITES,

8 Defendant. 9 10 On September 19, 2022, the Court entered a Report and Recommendation to dismiss without 11 prejudice Plaintiff’s discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, but with leave to amend. ECF 12 No. 3. The Recommendation was adopted by the District Judge in ECF No. 6. Plaintiff filed her 13 Amended Complaint before the District Judge adopted the recommendation (ECF Nos. 4, 5); 14 nonetheless, the Court construes these filings together as Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and 15 proceeds with screening. 16 I. Screening the Amended Complaint. 17 Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or 18 malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a 19 defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When a court dismisses a 20 complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions 21 as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could 22 not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 23 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 24 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially 25 a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). 26 A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 27 pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 1 labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. 2 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court 3 must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the complaint, but the same 4 requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements 5 of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, 6 where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the 7 complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Allegations of a pro se complaint are 8 held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 9 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is required after 10 Twombly and Iqbal). 11 II. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint States a Prima Facie Claim Under § 2000a. 12 “To establish a prima facie case under § 2000a, Title II of the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff 13 must demonstrate that he: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) attempted to contract for services 14 and afford himself or herself of the full benefits and enjoyment of a public accommodation; (3) was 15 denied the full benefits or enjoyment of a public accommodation; and (4) such services were available 16 to similarly situated persons outside his or her protected class who received full benefits or were 17 treated better.” Crumb v. Orthopedic Surgery Med. Grp., Case No. 07-cv-6114-GHK-PLAx, 2010 18 WL 11509292, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2010), aff’d, 479 F. App’x 767 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal 19 alterations and citations omitted). 20 Here, the Amended Complaint alleges Plaintiff was discriminated against by staff at a 21 Holiday Inn Express located in Pahrump, Nevada when she and her daughter were refused breakfast 22 service and told they would not be served unless they could prove they were staying at the hotel. 23 Plaintiff alleges she told the hotel employee that she and her daughter “had the right to be served” 24 and Plaintiff “asked to speak with a supervisor.” Plaintiff alleges the supervisor also did not believe 25 she and her daughter were hotel guests. Plaintiff ultimately went to her room and retrieved a room 26 key to demonstrate she was a guest entitled to breakfast service. Plaintiff claims she saw two 27 Caucasian guests served breakfast without being asked and without proving they were hotel guests. 1 || stealing and when confronted the next day with this accusation, the employee referred to Plaintiff a1 2 || her daughter as “monkeys” and “loud and ghetto.” 3 The Court views all inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff and applies a liber 4 || construction as required by /gbal and Twombly. The Court finds Plaintiffs allegations to support « 5 || inference that she (1) is a member of a protected claim, (2) attempted to obtain the full benefit | 6 || staying at the Holiday Inn Express, (3) was denied the full benefits when she was denied breakfa: 7 || and (4) observed breakfast service was available to similarly situated persons outside his or h 8 || protected class (Caucasians). Plaintiff supports these inferences not only the events involving at 9 || alleged initial refusal to serve her breakfast, but also with the alleged use of “monkey” and □□□□□□ 10 |] to address her. Green v. Franklin Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 459 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir. 2006) (“tl 11 |] use of the term ‘monkey’... [has] been part of actionable racial harassment claims across tl 12 |} country”). Thus, Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000 13 |} IIL. Order 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a m: 15 || proceed. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) the Court sua sponte exten 17 || the time for Plaintiff to serve her Amended Complaint (which includes ECF Nos. 4 and 5) « 18 || Defendant for a period of 90 days following the date of this Order. The Court advises Plaintiff 19 || review Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is available on line, to understand ho 20 || to effectively serve Holiday Inn Express. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to properly serve her Amended Complaint, togeth 22 |} with a Summons, which Plaintiff may request from the Clerk of Court, within 90 days of the date. 23 || this Order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this matter in its entirety without prejudice. 24 DATED this 27th day of January, 2023. 25 26 ELAYNG} Bebe : UNITED STATES MAG TE JUDGE