Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zhang v. Boeing

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

October 31, 2019

CHONG YU ZHANG, Plaintiff,
v.
EUREST BOEING, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Eurest Boeing's (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss pro se Plaintiff Chong Yu Zhang's Complaint. Dkt. # 7 at 1. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and DENIES Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement as moot. Id.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Chong Yu Zhang (“Plaintiff”) alleges that his employer, Eurest Compass Group, shorted his wages, drove him out, and terminated him without notice. Dkt. # 1, Ex. 1 at 9. Plaintiff also claims that he reported the wage issue to his local union representative, and they refused to investigate or provide material to the Washington Human Rights Commission. Id. at 10. Plaintiff further alleges that “[General Manager] Kris Villager defamed me, I threatened her, to hire a hitmen against her, to burn Boeing factory . . .” Id. at 9.

         On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff sued Eurest Boeing alleging that they shorted his wages, drove him out, and terminated him without notice. Dkt. # 1, Ex. 1 at 9. Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. # 7 at 1. Plaintiff opposes this motion. Dkt. # 10.[1]

         III. DISCUSSION

         The Court's authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff's case if the Court determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).

         “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v. Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL 1412302, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129). Rule 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 568. Where a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must construe the plaintiff's complaint liberally. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).

         Plaintiff's Complaint alleges almost no factual allegations to support his claims. Dkt. # 1. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do”). For example, Plaintiff alleges that his wages were shorted, but does not allege how his wages were shorted or any other facts to support his claim. Dkt. # 1, Ex. 1 at 9. Similarly, Plaintiff claims that his general manager, Kris Villager, defamed him, but provides no details regarding Villager's allegedly defamatory statement, such as whether the statement was published or whether Villager knew the statement was false. Herron v. KING Broad. Co., 112 Wash.2d 762, 768 (1989) (holding a defamation action consists of four elements: (1) a false statement, (2) publication, (3) fault, and (4) damages). Finally, most of the facts alleged appear to relate to the failure of the “Seattle Union” and the Washington Human Rights Commission to investigate Plaintiff's concerns, neither of which are parties to this action. Dkt. # 1, Ex. 1 at 9-10. Applying even the most liberal standard, Plaintiff's allegations are largely incomprehensible and fail to state a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp, 550 U.S. at 556. Dkt. # 1.[2]

         IV. CONCLUSION

         For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement is DENIED as moot. Dkt. # 7. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies addressed above. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within that timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that does not state a cognizable claim for relief or is otherwise untenable under § 1915(e), the Court will dismiss the action with prejudice. Because the Court has given Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is terminated as moot. Dkt. # 12.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.