Rumble v. Doe, No. 1:2019cv01212 - Document 23 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 03/03/2020. (choy, )(Copies mailed to Pro-Se Plaintiff on 03/03/2020)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rumble v. Doe Doc. 23 Dockets.Justia.com wich pevented plaintif rom shopping at defennt,s store ter plnif quesiond defendnfs evehndness in appling e bckpck oli;y. Defnnt,s ejcion of plnif rom he toe distinguishes is se om ohes in which ots have held hat secity mss did not depive plntfs of he ight to mke conacs. See Mori,· v. Oice Mx, Inc. 89 F.3d 411,414 (7h Cir. 1996) (holng hat olice sveillnce of back cstoms at torc s equest did not intrfere ih plntifs' its to ke nd foce onacs ase plintifs only showed a geneal interest n he mechndie nd "wre deied neier ince nor rvice, nor . . . skd to )eave he sore.,,)_ n sum, plinif hs plausibly alleged ntefeence ih is iht to mke a contract bsed on his ace because defendanfs employes bnd plaintif om he soe shotly atr plnif que tioned he toc,s dispaate ament of customes. V. For the resos sated above, plinif's§ 1981 clim is not me-bed, nd plaintif s plasibly alleged hat defendnt intefed ih plini's ight to mke nd efoe conacs. Accordngly, defenant's moion to diss mt e deid ih et to pni's § 1981 cl, nd plaintifs § 1981 clim ges owd. n appropriate Order wll issue sepaately. The Clerk is direced to send a copy of his Memondm Opion to ll osel of od nd he plnif. who is prcccdngpro se in this aer. Alendria, Virgiia Mch 3, 2020 T. S. .llis, Ill Uniltd Slale Dist 17
]]>
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.
