Howery v. The Boeing Company, No. 2:2014cv01555 - Document 54 (W.D. Wash. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting dft's 39 Motion to Dismiss; plaintiff permitted to file an amended complaint within 21 days of this order by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Howery v. The Boeing Company Doc. 54 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 CRYSTAL HOWERY, Case No. C14-01555RSM Plaintiff, 9 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND LEAVE TO AMEND v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant. 11 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 14 This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Rule 12(c) Motion to Dismiss. 15 Dkt. #39. Defendant seeks to dismiss all causes of action in this matter for Plaintiff’s failure to 16 allege any facts raising a plausible claim for relief. Id. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing 17 that her “facts must be accepted as true for purposes of this motion, and asserting that the ” 18 motion is improper because the pleadings are not yet closed. Dkt. #52. For the reasons set 19 forth herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion, but allows Plaintiff leave to amend. 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff Crystal Howery initially filed this action in the District Court for the Northern 22 District of California, alleging violations of, among other statutes, Title VII of the Civil 23 24 25 Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, arising from her employment with Defendant Boeing Company ( “Boeing) in Everett, Washington, and termination 26 ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 therefrom. Dkt. #1. 2 pauperis status in this Court. See Dkt. #1, Ex. 2. After Plaintiff filed her action, Boeing filed 3 a motion to transfer venue to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). California District 4 Plaintiff has been proceeding pro se, but has not sought in forma Judge Vince Chhabria granted Defendant’s Motion, finding that the case could have been filed 5 in the Western District of Washington and that the relevant convenience factors strongly 6 favored transfer to this District. Dkt. #21. The action was then transferred to this District on 7 8 October 9, 2014, and assigned to the undersigned Judge. Dkt. #22. Plaintiff thereafter 9 appealed Judge Chhabria’s transfer order, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied, 10 entering its mandate on December 29, 2014. This Court then considered Plaintiff’s motions to 11 appoint counsel and motion to transfer. See Dkts. #35 and #37. 12 On January 30, 2015, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motions. Dkt. #37. The Court 13 determined that Plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support any of the factors 14 in favor of appointment of counsel, but informed Plaintiff that she could re-file a motion to 15 appoint counsel should Plaintiff believe in good faith that she is able to meet the relevant 16 criteria. Id. at 4. The Court further found that venue is appropriate in this Court and declined 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 to transfer the matter back to California. Id. at 4-5. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges: Harassment and Retaliation for opposing and reporting discriminatory practices as well as for participating in investigations regarding discrimination. Violation(s) of: the Equal Pay Act; the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Civil Rights Act; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; and other violations of the law. Dkt. #1 at 2. 25 26 ORDER - 2 1 Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant discriminated against her based on her race, 2 religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information and age. Dkt. #1 at 2. In support 3 of her allegations, Plaintiff provides the following“facts ”: 4 5 I was not paid for my hourly work. I was also denied a bonus. Requests for reasonable accommodation were denied. I was harassed. I was placed on leave without pay. I was terminated. 6 Id. According to Plaintiff, the alleged discrimination occurred between December of 2011 7 8 and June 2012. Id. at 3. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity 9 Commission ( “EEOC who could not determine whether any violations had occurred, and ”), 10 received a Right-to-Sue Letter on February 9, 2014. Id., Attachment 1. She then proceeded 11 with this lawsuit. 12 13 14 III. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to move to 15 dismiss a suit “[a]fter the pleadings are closed . . . but early enough not to delay trial. Fed. R. ” 16 Civ. P. 12(c). “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when, taking all allegations in the 17 18 pleading as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Stanley v. ” 19 Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1133 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fleming v. 20 Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). 21 pleadings is “functionally identical to a motion to dismiss, the standard for a Rule 12(c) ” 22 motion is the same as for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF 23 Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1052 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008). 24 Because a motion for judgment on the In deciding a 12(b)(6) or 12(c) motion, this Court is limited to the allegations on the 25 face of the complaint (including documents attached thereto), matters which are properly 26 ORDER - 3 1 judicially noticeable and other extrinsic documents when “the plaintiff’s claim depends on the 2 contents of a document, the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss, and 3 the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document, even though the plaintiff does 4 not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 ” 5 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court must construe the complaint in the light most 6 favorable to the Plaintiff and must accept all factual allegations as true. Cahill v. Liberty 7 8 Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court must also accept as true all 9 reasonable inferences to be drawn from the material allegations in the Complaint. See 10 Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235, 1247-48 (9th Cir. 2013); Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 11 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). However, the Court is not required to accept as true a “legal 12 conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ” 13 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The Complaint “must 14 contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 15 on its face. Id. at 678. This requirement is met when Plaintiff “pleads factual content that ” 16 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 17 18 19 20 misconduct alleged. Id. Absent facial plausibility, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. B. Extrinsic Documents 21 The Court first addresses Defendant’s request that it consider the Collective 22 Bargaining Act which governed Plaintiff’s employment while she was working for 23 Defendant. Dkts. #39 at 10 and #40, Ex. A. The Court denies the request as it is not 24 necessary to consider that document in reaching its decision on this motion. 25 26 ORDER - 4 1 C. Alleged Failure to Meet Pleading Standard 2 Defendant argues that Ms. Howery’s claims should be dismissed because she fails to 3 meet the required pleading standards for her claims. The Court agrees. Even when taking 4 Plaintiff’s allegations as true, she has failed to allege the most basic facts such as her age, race, 5 or other identification of a protected class in which she alleges to be a member. See Dkt. #1. 6 She further fails to allege any facts indicating what she allegedly did (other than participating 7 8 in investigations of discrimination and reporting discriminatory behavior), who allegedly 9 retaliated and/or discriminated against her, what acts occurred, and when they occurred in 10 relation to her participation in investigations and reports of discrimination. As a result, she 11 fails to allege any plausible claims for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. For these reasons, the 12 Complaint must be dismissed.1 13 14 D. Leave to Amend Ordinarily, leave to amend a complaint should be freely given following an order of 15 dismissal, “unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured 16 by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); see also DeSoto v. ” 17 18 Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992) ( district court does not err in “A 19 denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile. (citing Reddy v. Litton Indus., ” 20 Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, if Plaintiff wishes to amend her 21 Complaint, she is permitted to file such Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of 22 the date of this Order. 23 deficiencies listed above. 1 Plaintiff argues that this motion has been brought improperly because the pleadings are not yet closed. However, Defendant filed its Answer on September 17, 2014. Therefore, the pleadings are closed, and Plaintiff’s argument is rejected. 24 25 26 ORDER - 5 The Amended Complaint should address, at a minimum, the IV. 1 2 3 4 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, and having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motions, any responses thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #39) is GRANTED. 5 2. Plaintiff is permitted to file an Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days 6 of the date of this Order. The Amended Complaint should address, at a minimum, 7 8 9 10 11 the deficiencies listed above. 3. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to file an Amended Complaint within the time allotted will result in the dismissal of her case. DATED this 6 day of April, 2015. 12 13 A 14 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER - 6
]]>
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.
