Hukman v. US Airways/American Airlines et al

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

E.D. Pa.June 21, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _________________________________ SHEIDA HUKMAN, Plaintiff, v. US AIRWAYS, et al., Defendants. _________________________________ : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 2:17-cv-00741-JS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT OR FOR A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT Defendant US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”)1, Kevin Bailey, Nina Bengivengo, Nicole Blanchard, Jeff Coleburn, Jacqueline Edwards, Eric Staples, Robert Weston, Laura Williams- Anderson, Robert Yori, and Despina Zanikos (collectively the “US Airways Defendants”), hereby move the Court for an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint2 [ECF No. 21] for failure to comply with the Court’s May 26, 2017 Order [ECF No. 20] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), or in the alternative, for an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for an order requiring Plaintiff to file a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). 1 Effective December 30, 2015, US Airways, Inc. merged into American Airlines, Inc. 2 On May 26, 2017, the Court granted co-Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement and Ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint that met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 on or before June 9, 2017. On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed what she captioned as “Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement.” For purposes of resolving the instant motion, Defendants will treat Plaintiff’s motion as an Amended Complaint. Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 2 2 The grounds, authority, and arguments in support of this Motion are fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, which is incorporated herein by reference. Respectfully submitted, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. /s/ L. Evan Van Gorder L. Evan Van Gorder, Esq. (Pa. Id. No. 307403) 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 995-2800 (215) 995-2801 (fax) evan.vangorder@ogletreedeakins.com Dated: June 21, 2017 Attorneys for Defendants US Airways, Inc., Kevin Bailey, Nina Bengivengo, Nicole Blanchard, Jeff Coleburn, Jacqueline Edwards, Eric Staples, Robert Weston, Laura Williams-Anderson, Robert Yori, and Despina Zanikos Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _________________________________ SHEIDA HUKMAN, Plaintiff, v. US AIRWAYS, et al., Defendants. _________________________________ : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 2:17-cv-00741-JS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT OR FOR A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT Defendant US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”)1, and Kevin Bailey, Nina Bengivengo, Nicole Blanchard, Jeff Coleburn, Jacqueline Edwards, Eric Staples, Robert Weston, Laura Williams-Anderson, Robert Yori, and Despina Zanikos (“Individual Defendants”) (collectively the “US Airways Defendants”), through their undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to Rules 10(b), 12(b), 12(e), and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move this Court for an entry of an Order dismissing Plaintiff Sheida Hukman’s Amended Complaint, with prejudice, or, in the alternative, requiring a more definite statement from Plaintiff. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 A. Procedural History On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against all defendants using a pre- printed form titled “Complaint for Discrimination” on which she marked that an action was 1 Effective December 30, 2015, US Airways, Inc. merged into American Airlines, Inc. 2 The facts set forth below are based upon the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint. The US Airways Defendants accept the facts as pled in the Amended Complaint as true for the purpose of this Motion only, but do not otherwise concede the truth or materiality of any of the facts as alleged in the Amended Complaint. Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 9 2 being brought for discrimination in employment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That complaint was unintelligible. On May 26, 2017, the Court ordered plaintiff to “file and serve an Amended Complaint that sets forth relevant dates, locations, and circumstances of each alleged violation of her rights, what rights have been violated, and how the Defendants participated in each alleged violation, no later than June 9, 2017.” See ECF No. 20. The Court also identified specific deficiencies with the complaint and directed her to fix those deficiencies. On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement,” which fails to comply with this Court’s order or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF No. 21. For purposes of this Motion, Defendants treat Plaintiff’s June 9, 2017 submission as an Amended Complaint. B. The Amended Complaint Much like Plaintiff’s initial complaint, her Amended Complaint seems to allege Title VII violations against the US Airways Defendants. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed because (1) it fails to comply with this Court’s May 26, 2017 Order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) it fails to allege that she exhausted her administrative remedies, a prerequisite to bringing a Title VII action; and, (3) it purports to allege Title VII claims against the Individual Defendants, but individual employees cannot be liable under Title VII. II. ARGUMENT A. Legal Standard for a Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) A complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To survive a Rule Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 9 3 12(b)(6) challenge a claim requires “more than labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In order to satisfy the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requirement of a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” a plaintiff’s factual allegations must be sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Ayers v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., No. 07-1780, 2008 WL 4425279, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2008) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, all well-pled factual allegations are accepted as true and all inferences are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Umland v. Planco Find Servs., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006)). However, a court will not accept bald assertions, unwarranted inferences or sweeping legal conclusions as factual allegations. See Maio v. Aetna, 221 F.3d 472, 482 (3d Cir. 2000). Indeed, a complaint that contains “no more than conclusions … [is] not entitled to the assumption of truth” otherwise applicable to complaints in the context of a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. B. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Comply With This Court’s May 26, 2017 Order Or The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure In the Court’s May 26, 2017 Order (ECF 20), the Court provided Plaintiff with specific direction to amend her deficient complaint. For example, the Court expressly instructed Plaintiff to amend her complaint because her original complaint lacked a caption that named all defendants and failed to state Plaintiff’s claims in concise numbered paragraphs as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10. Plaintiff has not corrected any of the deficiencies as ordered by this Court, and therefore, her Amended Complaint should be dismissed. See In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 07-md-1871; 11-cv-1029, 2017 U.S. Dist. Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 3 of 9 4 LEXIS 8656 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2017) (dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), because of plaintiffs’ failure to comply with court orders). Further, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to conform to the requirements of Rule 10, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Rule 10(b) provides that “[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (2017). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, however, consists of 27 pages of generalized - and often unintelligible - assertions and various legal conclusions. By virtue of this ambiguity, the US Airways Defendants are unable to discern what Plaintiff is claiming and to frame a responsive pleading. Because the Amended Complaint grossly fails to meet the minimum threshold required by Rule 10(b), it should be dismissed. See, e.g., Wahl v. Wecht, No. 10-cv-0010, 2010 WL 3811522, at *10 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2010) (“Where a complaint fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 10(b), dismissal of the action is within the discretion of the court.”). C. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because She Failed To Plead Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to plead that she exhausted her administrative remedies. In order to bring a Title VII claim, Plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies by filing an administrative charge and complete the administrative process before she “will be allowed access to federal judicial relief.” Watson v. Eastman Kodak Co., 235 F.3d 851, 854 (3d Cir. 2000); see also, Atkinson v. Lafayette Coll., 460 F.3d 447, 453 (3d Cir. 2006); Waiters v. Parsons, 729 F.2d 233, 237 (3d Cir. 1984). The exhaustion requirement serves to afford the EEOC with the opportunity to settle disputes through conference, conciliation and persuasion, avoiding unnecessary action in court. See Antol v. Perry, 82 F.3d 1291, 1296 (3d Cir. 1996). Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 4 of 9 5 In determining whether a plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies by alleging a claim under Title VII, courts will look to see whether the acts alleged in the underlying federal lawsuit are fairly within the scope of the prior EEOC complaint or the investigation arising therefrom. See Fessler v. PPL Utilities Corp., No. 08-1756, 2008 WL 3832224 at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2008) (quoting Antol v. Perry, 82 F.3d 1291, 1295 (3d Cir. 1996)). Because the EEOC is required to serve notice on the employer against whom the charges are made, this standard also allows an employer to be put on notice of the claims likely to be filed against it. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b), (e)(1). Courts routinely dismiss claims on a motion to dismiss where administrative remedies have not been exhausted. See, e.g., Ocasio v. City of Bethlehem, Civ.A. 08-3737, 2009 WL 37518, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2009) (granting motion to dismiss retaliation and hostile work environment claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies where the facts alleged in the charge did not support such claims); Nerosa v. Storecast Merchandising Corp., No. 02-440, 2002 WL 1998181, at *3-5 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2002) (finding that the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies for her hostile work environment and retaliation claims when her EEOC charge stated no set of facts or arguments supporting either claim); Wright v. Phila. Gas Works, No. 01-2655, 2001 WL 1169108, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2001) (dismissing the plaintiff's claims of a hostile work environment and retaliation for failure to exhaust when the EEOC charge alleged only racially motivated discharge); Watson v. SEPTA, No. 96-1002, 1997 WL 560181, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 1997) (retaliation claims barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies where in the EEOC charge plaintiff neither alleged “retaliation” nor alleged that she had complained about discrimination), aff’d, 207 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1147, 121 S.Ct. 1086, 148 L.Ed.2d 961 (2001). Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 5 of 9 6 For all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s failure to plead that she filed a charge with the EEOC and exhausted her administrative remedies is fatal to her claim.3 D. The Individual Defendants Should Be Dismissed Plaintiff has identified Kevin Bailey, Nina Bengivengo, Nicole Blanchard, Jeff Coleburn, Jacqueline Edwards, Eric Staples, Robert Weston, Laura Williams-Anderson, Robert Yori, and Despina Zanikos as individual defendants.4 However, three of the individuals - Nina Bengivengo, Nicole Blanchard, and Robert Weston - are not even mentioned in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Further, it appears Plaintiff continues to assert claims under Title VII against the Individual Defendants, despite the Court previously recognizing that “to the extent Hukman seeks to bring claims against those individuals pursuant to Title VII, the claims are not viable.” See May 26, 2017 Order (ECF 20). Indeed, it is well-settled that individuals cannot be liable under Title VII for discrimination or retaliation. See Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1129 (1997) (concluding that “Congress did not intend to hold individual employees liable under Title VII,”); Kachmar v. Sungard Data Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 173, 184 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Sheridan, supra and dismissing Title VII retaliatory discharge and discrimination claims against individual defendants); see also 3 To assert a timely claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of each alleged act of discrimination or retaliation. 42 USC 2000e-5(e)(1). Based on Exhibit 35 to Plaintiff’s original complaint, it appears she filed a charge with the EEOC at some point in 2016. Based on that, at best, Plaintiff’s Title VII claims are limited to acts that occurred within 300 days of filing the charge (no earlier than 2015). Plaintiff seemingly makes allegations that occurred between 2010 and 2013, which are time-barred and would be dismissed. 4 Notably, Plaintiff failed included these individual defendants in the case caption of the Amended Complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), even though the Court previously informed Plaintiff of her requirements under Rule 10. See May 26, 2017 Order [ECF 20]. Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 6 of 9 7 Dici v. Commonwealth, 91 F.3d 542, 552 (3d Cir. 1996) (dismissing Title VII claims against individual defendants). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed with respect to the Individual Defendants. E. Alternatively, Plaintiff Should Be Required to Amend Her Amended Complaint To Provide a More Definite Statement. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. If, however, for some reason this Court is not inclined to dismiss the Amended Complaint, it should, at a minimum order Plaintiff to amend her complaint to provide a short and plain statement of her claims. Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, that “[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) (2017). Courts consider excessively voluminous and unfocused complaints to be unintelligible. See Binsack v. Lackawanna Cty. Prison, 438 F. App’x 158, 160 (3d Cir. 2011). In Binsack, the Third Circuit agreed with a Magistrate Judge’s determination that a complaint was so excessively voluminous and unfocused that it was unintelligible. Id. As the Third Circuit noted upon review, such complaints are “anything but ‘simple, concise and direct.’” Id. Indeed, district courts have looked to the requirements of Rule 8 in granting motions for a more definite statement. See Cox v. Timoney, 2000 WL 1887529, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2000). In Cox v. Timoney, the court granted the defendants’ motion for a more definite statement where the plaintiff’s pleading failed to meet the requirements of Rule 8. Id. at *2. The court found that the plaintiff’s complaint was confusing, vague, ambiguous, unintelligible in parts, and lacking simple, concise, and direct statements. Id. at *1. The plaintiff’s complaint contained a list of Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 7 of 9 8 complaints of a very general and conclusory nature, and then the plaintiff attached to the complaint an assortment of documents. Id. The court found that the complaint did not tell the defendants what they did that in plaintiff’s view violated the law. Id. The court noted that “[s]imply appending a mass of documents as plaintiff has done here does not aid the defendants in responding to that complaint.” Id. In the present case, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is at best vague and ambiguous such that if this Court is for some reason not inclined to dismiss it for the reasons set forth above, a more definite statement should be ordered. Like the complaint discussed in Binsack, Plaintiff’s 27-page Complaint, which names at least 16 defendants, is so excessively voluminous and unfocused that it is unintelligible. As in Cox, Plaintiff clearly failed to meet the requirements of Rule 8 as the Complaint lacks simple, clear, and direct statements. Moreover, as discussed above, Plaintiff failed to concisely identify her claims in numbered paragraphs as required by Rule 10. The US Airways Defendants cannot reasonably answer the Amended Complaint without being able to discern what they did that in Plaintiff’s view violated the law. A Second Amended Complaint with separately numbered paragraphs that clarifies what cause(s) of action Plaintiff is bringing against each named defendant, tied in some fashion to the alleged pertinent facts, would allow the US Airways Defendants to respond to the facts and allegations contained within the Complaint. Accordingly, if the Court denies the US Airways Defendants’ request to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice, which it should not, the Court should still order Plaintiff to file a more definite statement with separately numbered paragraphs that sufficiently alleges what cause(s) of action that she is bringing against each defendant, and which alleged facts relate to those causes of action. Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 8 of 9 9 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the US Airways Defendants respectfully request that this Court dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. /s/ L. Evan Van Gorder L. Evan Van Gorder, Esq. (Pa. Id. No. 307403) 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 995-2800 (215) 995-2801 (fax) evan.vangorder@ogletreedeakins.com Dated: June 21, 2017 Attorneys for Defendants US Airways, Inc., Kevin Bailey, Nina Bengivengo, Nicole Blanchard, Jeff Coleburn, Jacqueline Edwards, Eric Staples, Robert Weston, Laura Williams-Anderson, Robert Yori, and Despina Zanikos Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-1 Filed 06/21/17 Page 9 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _________________________________ SHEIDA HUKMAN, Plaintiff, v. US AIRWAYS, et al., Defendants. _________________________________ : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 2:17-cv-00741-JS ORDER NOW, this _______ day of ______________________, 2017, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendants US Airways, Inc., Kevin Bailey, Nina Bengivengo, Nicole Blanchard, Jeff Coleburn, Jacqueline Edwards, Eric Staples, Robert Weston, Laura Williams-Anderson, Robert Yori, and Despina Zanikos, to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,1 and any response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed, with prejudice. Hon. Juan R. Sanchez 1 On May 26, 2017, this Court Ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint that met the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 on or before June 9, 2017. On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed what she captioned as “Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement.” See ECF No. 21. For purposes of resolving the instant motion, the Court will treat Plaintiff’s June 9, 2017 filing as an Amended Complaint. Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-2 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _________________________________ SHEIDA HUKMAN, Plaintiff, v. US AIRWAYS, et al., Defendants. _________________________________ : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 2:17-cv-00741-JS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on June 21, 2017, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint or for a More Definite Statement with accompanying Memorandum of Law and Text of Proposed Order were filed through the ECF system and will be simultaneously served electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing. I further certify that true and correct copies of today’s filings were also served by U.S. First Class Mail to the pro se Plaintiff listed below on June 21, 2017: Sheida Hukman P.O. Box 96321 Las Vegas, NV 89193 Pro Se Plaintiff OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. /s/ L. Evan Van Gorder L. Evan Van Gorder, Esq. (Pa. Id. No. 307403) 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 995-2800 (215) 995-2801 (fax) evan.vangorder@ogletreedeakins.com Dated: June 21, 2017 Attorneys for Defendants US Airways, Inc., Kevin Bailey, Nina Bengivengo, Nicole Blanchard, Jeff Coleburn, Jacqueline Edwards, Eric Staples, Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-3 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 2 Robert Weston, Laura Williams-Anderson, Robert Yori, and Despina Zanikos Case 2:17-cv-00741-JS Document 24-3 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 2