MARTIN v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, No. 1:2016cv00743 - Document 30 (D.D.C. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 7/6/16.(ah)

Download PDF
MARTIN v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RICHARD MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. McDONALD’S CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 16-cv-0743-TSC MEMORANDUM OPINION In a complaint filed pro se on May 22, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiff alleges that on September 26, 2013, a special police officer harassed and assaulted him while he stood in the lobby of a McDonald’s restaurant in the District of Columbia and falsely arrested him. (Compl. at 1-2, ECF No. 1.) Because of the location of the alleged events, the case was transferred to this Court in April 2016. (See ECF Nos. 24, 25.) Plaintiff sues McDonald’s Corporation in Oak Brook, Illinois, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, battery, defamation, false imprisonment, assault, and malicious prosecution. (Compl. at 2.) Defendant moved for dispositive relief on May 4, 2016 (ECF No. 26), and plaintiff was ordered to respond by June 20, 2016, or risk summary dismissal of the case on a conceded motion to dismiss. (See May 4, 2016 Order, ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff has not complied with the order, and he has not sought additional time to comply. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff has conceded defendant’s valid arguments for 1 Dockets.Justia.com dismissal—namely (1) that his intentional tort claims based on events that allegedly occurred in September 2013 are barred by the District of Columbia’s one-year statute of limitations, and (2) that he has failed to state a claim against McDonald’s Corporation since it has no relationship with the alleged wrongdoer and does not own or operate the McDonald’s restaurant where the alleged incident occurred. (Def.’s Mem. of P. & A. at 4-7.) Consequently, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: July 6, 2016 Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge 2

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.