Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01308/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

All factual allegations referenced in this Order are drawn exclusively from the

Complaint, and, for purposes of this Order, are presumed to be true.

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amanda U. Ajuluchuku, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U-Haul International, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-05-1308-PHX-SRB

OPINION AND ORDER

The events giving rise to this lawsuit involve Defendant U-Haul International, Inc.'s

allegedly poor treatment of one its customers, Plaintiff Amanda U. Ajuluchuku, a woman

who rented two U-Haul storage lockers. At issue is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

12). For the reasons that follow, that motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND1

There are two storage lockers at issue, one in Bedford, Massachusetts (the "Bedford

Locker"), the other in Seattle, Washington (the "Seattle Locker"). Plaintiff rented the

Bedford Locker in November 2003, and used her credit card to pay the monthly rental fee.

About two months later, Plaintiff returned to the site of the Bedford Locker, but was refused

entry by a U-Haul employee who informed Plaintiff that the rent on the Locker had not been

Case 2:05-cv-01308-SRB Document 27 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

It is not clear from the Complaint whether Plaintiff or someone from U-Haul called

the ambulance.

- 2 -

paid. Plaintiff became frustrated, as she had been informed by the same U-Haul employee

about one month earlier that the rent had in fact been paid through April 2004. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff paid an additional $54, and was given permission to remove items from the Locker.

The Complaint contains no other allegations concerning her treatment vis-à-vis the Bedford

Locker.

After extracting certain personal items from the Bedford Locker, Plaintiff moved to

Washington, whereupon she rented a second U-Haul storage locker. Three weeks after

renting the Seattle Locker, Plaintiff, when she attempted to retrieve some belongings from

that locker, was informed by the manager of the site that she could not retrieve those items,

unless she left her identification with him. In particular, Plaintiff alleges that she was told,

"I will evict you if you do not leave your ID with me." (Compl. ¶ 12) (emphasis in original).

Several weeks later, Plaintiff returned to the site to retrieve more personal items but

was refused entry by a U-Haul employee, who informed her that he had already closed "the

gate." The employee then told her that she could take the stairs, a method of entry

unavailable to Plaintiff due to her "disability." After a second U-Haul employee refused to

open the gate, Plaintiff called the Seattle Police Department, but apparently this phone call

did not cause the gate to be opened. Plaintiff "began to dehydrate," (Compl. ¶ 18) and an

ambulance was called.2

 Plaintiff refused treatment, and the gate was opened after the

ambulance departed. Plaintiff was forced to wait "more than one hour" for the gate to be

opened. (Compl. ¶ 18.)

Another "discriminatory practice" allegedly occurred on June 25, 2004, but the

Complaint contains no further detail, other than to say that "both the Police and the

Ambulance helped me haul out the rest of my belongings." (Compl. ¶ 19.)

This is the fourth lawsuit that Plaintiff has filed concerning the above-described

events. The first, filed in a Washington state court and removed to the United States District

Case 2:05-cv-01308-SRB Document 27 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The only real difference the Court can discern is that while the first three complaints

named "U-Haul Co. of Washington" as the defendant, the present Complaint names "U-Haul

International, Inc." 

4

The amount of damages that Plaintiff has sought has increased dramatically in each

successive lawsuit. The first suit demanded six million dollars; the second, six hundred

million dollars; and the third, one billion dollars. This lawsuit demands

"$1,000,000,000,000,000 (One trillion)." The reason for these precipitous increases is not

immediately apparent, as the factual allegations in each complaint have remained essentially

the same. 

- 3 -

Court for the Western District of Washington, was dismissed because Plaintiff sought

monetary damages, despite suing under statutory provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") which do not allow monetary damages.

The second action, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of

Washington, added various state law claims, but was again dismissed, as Plaintiff failed to

make the requisite showing for an injunction, and the state law causes of action failed to state

a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The third action, also filed in the

Western District of Washington, was dismissed after the court revoked, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(A) and (B)(ii), Plaintiff's leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as the court

doubted Plaintiff's indigent status and felt that her complaint suffered from the same

deficiencies as the one that had been dismissed with prejudice in the prior action.

Plaintiff filed the fourth complaint concerning her allegedly unlawful treatment at the

hands of Defendant in this Court on May 2, 2005. This Complaint, which appears

substantively identical to those that preceded it,3

 once again alleges violations of the ADA,

42 U.S.C. § 12182, et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, et seq. The

Complaint also alleges that Defendant committed the torts of false imprisonment and "Mental

or Emotional Distress." Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, reasoning that

"since the torts did occur, you [the Court] must concur."4

 (Compl. at 5.) Defendant filed the

instant Motion to Dismiss on August 12, 2005, claiming that this action is barred by

principles of claim preclusion, and that the Complaint fails to state a claim.

Case 2:05-cv-01308-SRB Document 27 Filed 10/25/05 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

A. Claim Preclusion

"The doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) provides that a final judgment on the

merits bars a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies over the same cause

of action." In re Imperial Corp. of Am., 92 F.3d 1503, 1506 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations

omitted) (emphasis added); Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir. 1988)

(quotations omitted). As the defendant in the present action (U-Haul International, Inc.) is

different from the defendant in the former action (U-Haul of Washington), the threshold

question is whether the two defendants can be considered, for purposes of claim preclusion,

to be in privity with one another.

The only fact that the Court has before it concerning the relationship between the two

defendants comes by way of a footnote in Defendant's brief: "Plaintiff has now sued the

wrong party. . . . She has now sued [U-Haul of Washington's] parent company, U-Haul

International, Inc. The fact that plaintiff has sued the wrong company does not save her

claims, which have already been found to be fatally defective." (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at

7 n.2.) This bare assertion in Defendant's brief does not qualify as evidence. Smith v. Mack

Trucks, Inc., 505 F.2d 1248, 1249 (9th Cir. 1974) (noting that statements contained in legal

memoranda are not evidence). 

Because the Court has no evidence before it concerning the relationship between UHaul International, Inc. and U-Haul of Washington, Defendant cannot rely on the rule that,

for purposes of claim preclusion, a parent corporation is generally considered to be in privity

with its wholly-owned subsidiary. See In re Imperial Corp. of Am., 92 F.3d at 1505-08.

B. Failure to State a Claim

While Defendant cannot rely on the principles of claim preclusion to bring about the

dismissal of this action, Defendant can rely on the fact that the Complaint fails to state a

claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The first three district court judges

to dismiss Plaintiff's claims' explained to Plaintiff why her claims were legally deficient.

This Court has reviewed those orders, and agrees with them entirely: Plaintiff has not

Case 2:05-cv-01308-SRB Document 27 Filed 10/25/05 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

pleaded sufficient facts to support her claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The Complaint is

dismissed. 

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12). The Complaint

is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 21st day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01308-SRB Document 27 Filed 10/25/05 Page 5 of 5