Taylor et al v. Walmart, Inc., No. 1:2010cv01138 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action proceed Defendant Walmart, Inc. on Plaintiffs' claims of racial discrimination in violation of 42 USC 1981, unlawful intimidation by use of force, fraud, and intentional infliction of em otional distress; Plaintiffs claims for extortion, assault, violation of interstate commerce rights and intentional endangerment of a fetus be dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim; re 1 Complaint filed by Corey Taylor, Jotasha Taylor ; referred to Judge Wanger, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 08/02/2010. Objections to F&R due by 9/7/2010 (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taylor et al v. Walmart, Inc. Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 COREY TAYLOR, et al., 10 Plaintiffs, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01138 OWW DLB FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS v. WALMART, INC., 13 (Docs. 8 and 9) Defendant. 14 / 15 16 17 Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Complaint I. Procedural History 18 Plaintiffs Corey Taylor and Jotasha Taylor (“Plaintiffs”) are proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiffs filed this action on June 20 24, 2010. On July 29, 2010, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiffs’ complaint states 21 cognizable claims against Defendant Walmart, Inc. for racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1981, unlawful intimidation by use of force, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, 23 but does not state claims for extortion, assault, violation of interstate commerce rights or intentional 24 endangerment of a fetus. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to either file an amended complaint or notify 25 the Court of their willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On July 30, 26 2010, Plaintiffs notified the Court that they do not wish to amend and are willing to proceed on the 27 claims found cognizable. Based on Plaintiffs’ notice, the instant Findings and Recommendations 28 now issue. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 II. Screening Requirement 2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the complaint 3 for sufficiency to state a claim. The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the Court 4 determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief 5 may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend 7 may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 8 III. Failure to State a Claim 9 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 10 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 11 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 12 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt 13 Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this 14 standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. 15 Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most 16 favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 17 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides: 19 21 A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief: and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. 22 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 23 Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and 24 state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 25 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts 26 which the Defendant engaged in that support Plaintiffs’ claim. Id. Although a complaint need not 27 outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the allegations that all elements exist 28 and that there is entitlement to relief under some viable legal theory. Walker v. South Cent. Bell 20 2 1 Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990); Lewis v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 2 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998). 3 IV. Plaintiffs’ Claims 4 According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that on March 2, 2010, they purchased tires at 5 a Walmart in Odessa, Texas. “[D]efendants” claimed that the tires were compatible for Plaintiffs’ 6 2002 Pontiac Grand Prix. Plaintiffs paid for the tires, along with a disposal fee, but defendant 7 intentionally installed cheaper tires, which were “dangerously” incompatible for Plaintiffs’ compact 8 car and were made for a SUV-style vehicle. Plaintiffs allege that “defendants” also attempted to 9 “extort extra money” by charging $10.00 per tire for balancing. Plaintiffs refused “her advances.” 10 The “defendant” then lied and said “she” gave Plaintiffs a free balance. 11 Plaintiffs allege that “defendants” were aware of the fact that Plaintiff Jotasha Taylor was in 12 late term pregnancy and the installed tires were fatally incompatible with their family car. “She also 13 knew” that they were traveling interstate. Plaintiffs further allege that the “she” attempted to hide 14 the store’s license number, typing “God Bless America” in that section, which was not a common 15 practice for white customers. The defendant’s last words were “have a bumpy ride.” 16 Plaintiffs allege that they were forced drive through the night from Odessa, Texas to 17 Shreveport, Louisiana. The ride allegedly was “brutal” for 7 months pregnant Mrs. Taylor. 18 Plaintiffs then took their vehicle to Walmart #0448 in Shreveport, Louisiana. The “defendants” 19 stated that it “was obvious” that a free balancing had not been performed and that it is not a Walmart 20 policy to charge an extra $40 for tire balancing after the purchase of 4 new tires. They were given 21 a free balancing. 22 Thereafter, Plaintiffs allege that they left for their home in Fresno, California. All of the 23 Walmart stores were closed. During the trip, the bumping multiplied at an alarming rate. Plaintiffs 24 allegedly experienced a “life threatening” blow out of the driver side tire. Mr. Taylor had to change 25 the tire on a dark highway. Plaintiffs allege that they had no choice but to finish the trip on 3 26 defective tires and 1 donut tire, a drive of over 1,000 miles. 27 Plaintiffs allege that they arrived at Walmart Kings Canyon, Fresno. Plaintiffs expressed to 28 “defendants” the tire problem and its severity. After a short investigation, defendant allegedly stated 3 1 “Oh my God! These are definitely the wrong tires!”, “They definitely manipulated you guys,” and 2 “This is a major safety issue.” Plaintiffs also allege that “she” made calls to neighboring Walmarts 3 to see if they had the correct brand in stock. Plaintiffs were told that it was not against store policy 4 to ask another tire store, but it needed supervisor approval. 5 Plaintiffs allege that they waited two hours for Susan, a manager representing defendant, to 6 arrive. After reading the contract, Plaintiffs allege that Susan immediately lied and said defendant 7 was not liable for new tires. When Mrs. Taylor pointed out the clause on the back, Susan allegedly 8 “violently ripped the receipt” from Plaintiffs’ hands and screamed for them to “Go sit down!” Mrs. 9 Taylor allegedly pleaded for the more sympathetic associate to help put the receipt back together. 10 Plaintiffs allege that this harsh treatment was not given to white customers. 11 Plaintiffs allegedly informed Susan that they knew they were entitled to help from Defendant 12 Walmart Inc. to get the tires that they paid for. Plaintiffs allege that Susan and another employee 13 verbally attacked Mrs. Taylor and refused to allow Plaintiffs “to view policies.” Susan reportedly 14 yelled that she did not have to serve them and all she had to do was refuse service. Plaintiffs allege 15 that defendant denied service and they faced public humiliation. Plaintiffs also allege that defendant 16 treated their “family of African Amercians extremely and significantly less than whites were treated 17 at the public accommodation.” Plaintiffs further allege that “defendants” intentionally inflicted 18 emotional harm on them in front of other customers and employees. 19 Plaintiffs allege that when they asked to speak with a “higher up manager,” Susan lied and 20 said she had the most authority and no other manager would be there until the next day. Plaintiffs 21 allege that they called the Odessa location, but the manager there reportedly said it was out of his 22 hands and Robert Craigo had the duty of care to resolve the issue. The manager refused to speak to 23 Mr. Craigo. Plaintiffs further allege that after 4 hours, Mr. Craigo, the store manager, came out of 24 his office. Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Craigo tried to deceive them into thinking that Defendant 25 Walmart Inc. had “zero liability.” Plaintiffs reportedly informed him that he was obligated by 26 contract. Plaintiffs allege that he inspected the tires and then phoned the clerk that did the work, who 27 allegedly stated, “It wasn’t a mix-up, it was intentional.” Mr. Craigo allegedly responded “Next time 28 cover yourself and make them sign a disclaimer.” He then told Plaintiffs that he could get the right 4 1 tire, but just didn’t want to. He offered to take the tires back for a full refund, leaving Plaintiffs with 2 a tireless car. Plaintiffs allege that this was reckless and unreasonable. Mr. Craigo allegedly invited 3 Plaintiffs to do the work themselves and refused to work if he or his white staff members had to do 4 the work for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that it is very evident they are a black family. 5 Plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Craigo intimidated them by threatening forceful removal of 6 their car. After Plaintiffs removed their vehicle, they asked an employee to provide the last name 7 of the store manager. The employee allegedly responded, “I don’t know. And if I did I wouldn’t tell 8 your black ass.” Plaintiffs allege that they again approached Mr. Craigo, asking for a higher official 9 to help them get their tires. Mr. Craigo reportedly gave them a telephone number that turned out to 10 be a leasing company. Plaintiffs allege that they were forced to leave Walmart with the same tires. 11 12 Plaintiffs assert causes of action for violation of their civil rights and racial discrimination. 13 Plaintiffs also assert causes of action for intentional endangerment of a fetus, unlawful intimidation 14 by use of force, violation of interstate commerce rights, fraud, extortion, assault and intentional 15 infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs seek general and punitive damages, along with the costs 16 of tire service and court costs in a total amount of $111,000,349.00. 17 Plaintiffs’ complaint appears to state cognizable claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. section 18 1981, unlawful intimidation by use of force (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1), fraud, and intentional infliction 19 of emotional distress. 20 Extortion 21 Courts have relied on the definition and elements of the criminal code to analyze a civil 22 extortion claim. See Monex Deposit Co. v. Gilliam, 2009 WL 2870642, at *1 (C.D.Cal.2009) 23 (relying on California Penal Code section 518 to define civil extortion as “the obtaining of property 24 from another, with his consent ... induced by a wrongful use of force or fear ...”). California has 25 recognized a claim of “civil extortion” for the recovery of money obtained by the wrongful threat 26 of criminal or civil prosecution. See Fuhrman v. Cal. Satellite Sys., Inc., 179 Cal.App.3d 408, 426, 27 231 Cal.Rptr. 113 (1986). The Court construes the claim as one for civil extortion. However, the 28 complaint does not adequately allege that Defendant obtained property or money from Plaintiffs with 5 1 their consent, at least in part induced by wrongful use of fear, or that Defendant threatened criminal 2 or civil prosecution. 3 Assault 4 An assault is a demonstration of an unlawful intent by one person to inflict immediate injury 5 on the person of another then present. Lowry v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 63 Cal.App.2d 1, 6 6-7, 146 P.2d 57 (1944). The tort of assault is complete when the anticipation of harm occurs. 7 Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for Southern California, 144 Cal.App.3d 222, 232, 192 Cal.Rptr. 492 8 (1983). 9 Plaintiffs do not allege that defendant (or individuals) intended to inflict immediate injury 10 on them and that they anticipated harm. Plaintiffs fail to plead facts that the behavior of one or more 11 of the individuals lead to Plaintiffs’ fear of imminent bodily harm. 12 Violation of Interstate Commerce Rights and Intentional Endangerment of a Fetus 13 There do not appear to be separate claims under such labels. In other words, there is no 14 indication that there are such claims or that Plaintiffs may maintain such actions under federal, state 15 or common law. 16 V. Conclusion and Recommendations 17 Plaintiffs’ complaint appears to state causes of action for racial discrimination in violation 18 of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, unlawful intimidation by use of force, fraud, and intentional infliction of 19 emotional distress against Defendant, but fails to state claims for extortion, assault, violation of 20 interstate commerce rights or intentional endangerment of a fetus. Plaintiffs were provided with the 21 opportunity to either amend or proceed only on their cognizable claims, and have opted to proceed 22 on the cognizable claims. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 23 1. This action proceed Defendant Walmart, Inc. on Plaintiffs’ claims of racial 24 discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, unlawful intimidation by use of 25 force, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 26 2. Plaintiffs’ claims for extortion, assault, violation of interstate commerce rights and 27 intentional endangerment of a fetus be dismissed from this action for failure to state 28 a claim. 6 1 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 2 pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being served 3 with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiffs may file written objections with the Court. 4 Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 Cir. 1991). 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a August 2, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
