United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
RICHARD M. MARTINDALE, Plaintiff,
TARGET SOUTHCENTER MANAGEMENT; KAYLA “LAST NAME UNKNOWN”; DENISE MAY; KATHY SMITH; GREGG STERHAFEL; and JOHN MULLIGAN, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Target
Corporation's (improperly named Target Southcenter
Management) Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b). Dkt. #7.
Plaintiff Richard Martindale has failed to file a timely
opposition. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS
Defendant Target's Motion.
Martindale alleges that Defendants discriminated against him
and violated his constitutional rights when they refused to
let him use the restroom, called the police, and asked him to
leave a Target store in Tukwila, Washington. Dkt. #1-1. The
Complaint states that the alleged discrimination occurred
“around the month of December of 2014 or around the
month of January apprx [sic] of early 2015.” Dkt. #1-1
at 1. However, Plaintiff also states that the day was
“during Christmas season” and that Plaintiff was
“shopping for Christmas.” Id. at 2.
filed his Complaint in King County Superior Court on January
24, 2018. Dkt. #1-1. On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed an
“Amended Exhibit” in the Superior Court case,
which appears to be a Police Report from the incident. Dkt.
#8 at 10-11. The report is dated December 12, 2014.
Legal Standard under Rule 12(b)(6)
making a 12(b)(6) assessment, the court accepts all facts
alleged in the complaint as true, and makes all inferences in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Baker
v. Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824
(9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). However, the
court is not required to accept as true a “legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This
requirement is met when the plaintiff “pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. The complaint need not include
detailed allegations, but it must have “more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Absent facial
plausibility, a plaintiff's claims must be dismissed.
Id. at 570.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rule
argues that this case must be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted because the
applicable statute of limitations bars Plaintiff's
claims. Dkt. #7 at 8-10. Defendants contend that
Plaintiff's claims of race or other discrimination must,
under any circumstances, be filed within three years of the
incident. Id. (citing Goodman v. Lukens Steel
Co., 482 U.S. 656, 660, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 96 L.Ed.2d 572
(1987); Douchette v. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403, 117
Wn.2d 805, 809, 818 P.2d 1362 (1991); RCW 4.16.080(2)).
Court agrees with Target. Accepting all facts alleged in the
complaint as true, and making all inferences in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court concludes
that the incident in question took place prior to Christmas
Day, 2014, which is more than three years before this case
was filed. Given the apparent claims of discrimination that
Plaintiff is bringing against Defendants, all of
Plaintiff's claims are thus time-barred. The Court can
reach this conclusion without considering the apparent police
report attached by Plaintiff, which appears to date the
incident as occurring on December 12, 2014. Furthermore, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has admitted the merit of this
Motion by failing to file an opposition. See LCR
7(b)(2) (“Except for motions for summary judgment, if a
party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such
failure may be considered by the court as an admission that
the motion has merit.”).
complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim,
“leave to amend should be granted unless the court
determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with
the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the
deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well
Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). The
Court finds that Plaintiff cannot allege different facts,
consistent with the challenged pleading, which could survive
dismissal and that therefore leave to amend will not be
Defendant's Other ...