Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05022/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05022-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCA MORALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05022-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

PREJUDICE

Docket No. 52

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 13, 2014, Plaintiff Francisca Moralez filed the instant action against 

Defendant Whole Foods Market California, Inc. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended 

Complaint on July 23, 2015, which the Court dismissed on December 9, 2015. Docket No. 47 

(SAC). After Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on January 13, 2016, Whole Foods filed 

a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Docket No. 52 (Mot.).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Whole Foods‟s motion to dismiss and 

dismiss Plaintiff‟s complaint with prejudice.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff‟s complaint arises out of a series of visits by Plaintiff to a Whole Foods store in 

Walnut Creek, California. Plaintiff self-identifies as a “physically handicapped person” under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and requires the assistance of a wheelchair. 

Docket No. 51 (Third Amended Complaint) (TAC) at ¶ 7. Plaintiff also self-identifies as a “nonwhite, Mexican-American and American Indian.” Id. at ¶ 8.

Plaintiff mostly states the same facts that were in her Second Amended Complaint. See 

Docket No. 54 (Opp.) at 4 (“The third amendment alleges few additional facts . . . .”). 

Case 3:14-cv-05022-EMC Document 60 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Specifically, Plaintiff again alleges that she was involved in a number of disputes and 

confrontations with the Walnut Creek store regarding the store‟s failure to remove merchandise 

from a service counter that Plaintiff believed existed for the primary purpose of being useful to 

disabled persons (like herself) in a wheelchair. Id. at ¶¶ 13-20. Plaintiff ultimately had an 

unpleasant confrontation with several employees on October 5, 2013, after which she began to 

shop at a different Whole Foods store. Id. at ¶¶ 21-24. In May 2014, Plaintiff returned to the 

Walnut Creek store; when she attempted to put her groceries on the service counter, the employee 

placed a sign in front of her items indicating that the register was closed. Id. at ¶ 25. Two police 

officers approached Plaintiff, informing her that she was trespassing and that she could be 

arrested. Id. at ¶ 27. An employee then told Plaintiff that she was “barred from every Whole 

Foods in the United States of America.” Id. at ¶ 28.

Plaintiff then filed the instant suit. Plaintiff‟s original complaint alleged claims under the 

ADA; however, the parties agreed that the ADA claims were barred by res judicata. Docket No. 

25 at ¶¶ 4-6. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to the filing of a Second Amended Complaint so 

that the preclusion-barred claims for violation of the ADA could be removed. Plaintiff‟s Second 

Amended Complaint alleged (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (2) general 

negligence, (3) violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and (4) violations of 

California‟s Unruh Civil Rights Act. SAC at ¶¶ 37-69.

This Court dismissed Plaintiff‟s Second Amended Complaint. Docket No. 47 (Motion to 

Dismiss Order) (Ord.) at 1. In dismissing Plaintiff‟s Title II claims, the Court found that Plaintiff 

had alleged no specific, non-conclusory facts from which a plausible claim of race discrimination 

could be stated. Id. at 3. Instead, the Court explained that it “seems clear that the primary claim in 

this case is based on discrimination due to disability, rather than race, which is reflected by the 

lack of any specific facts that any of Defendant‟s behavior was due to Plaintiff‟s race.” Id. at 4. 

The Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice, with the expectation that 

“[i]f any amended complaint is filed, there must be sufficient factual allegations made with a 

Case 3:14-cv-05022-EMC Document 60 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

sufficient basis to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 to support a claim of racial discrimination . . . .”1

Plaintiff then filed the instant complaint, alleging a single claim of race discrimination 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. TAC at ¶¶ 37-51. However, Plaintiff also admits in her complaint that 

“[a]t no time did [she] hear any employee of [Defendant] utter any racially negative comments 

towards her” or “call her any racially negative names.” TAC at ¶ 26. Plaintiff contends that 

Whole Foods did refuse her service, and that “P[laintiff] believes there can be no other explanation 

for her disparate treatment other than D[efendant‟s] racial discrimination.” Id. at ¶ 36.

III. DISCUSSION

In order to plead a section 1981 claim, a plaintiff must alleged that: (1) she is a member of 

a racial minority, (2) that the defendant had an intent to discriminate against the plaintiff on the 

basis of race, and (3) the discrimination concerned one of the activities enumerated in the statute. 

See Jefferson v. City of Fremont, No. C-12-0926-EMC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60141, at *5-6 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012). The Ninth Circuit has found that allegations of “overt acts coupled 

with racial remarks” are sufficient to state a claim under section 1981. Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 

1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding sufficient allegations where defendants instigated an “arrestboycott conspiracy” against the plaintiffs and made statements that “whites have no rights on the 

reservation”).

Plaintiff pleads no facts that demonstrate any of the actions that occurred were related to 

racial discrimination. At most, Plaintiff alleges her personal belief that Whole Foods 

discriminated against her, specifically her belief that there is “no other explanation for her 

disparate treatment” other than her race. TAC at ¶ 36. However, Plaintiff‟s personal belief of 

discrimination, without any factual support, is insufficient to satisfy federal pleading standards. 

See Jones v. Non Profits United, No. 10-4252-EDL, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141574, at *6-7 (N.D. 

 

1

The Court also: (1) dismissed Plaintiff‟s claim for retaliation with prejudice, finding that the fact 

that Plaintiff filed a prior suit against Whole Foods did not make her a member of a protected 

class; (2) dismissed Plaintiff‟s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress without 

prejudice, finding insufficient factual allegations of outrageous conduct or severe emotional 

distress; and (3) dismissed Plaintiff‟s claim of negligence without prejudice because it was not 

clear that a store proprietor‟s duty extended to protecting the emotional well-being of a customer 

who is refused service and does not suffer an arrest as a result of the proprietor‟s actions. Id. at 6-

10.

Case 3:14-cv-05022-EMC Document 60 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Cal. Feb. 22, 2010) (dismissing section 1981 claim where the plaintiff alleged that she was 

demoted and terminated because of lies that a white subordinate with racial animus told about her, 

but made no allegations that the subordinate played any role in the decision to demote or terminate 

the plaintiff, and no allegations to otherwise support her belief that the adverse employment 

decisions were due to race); Melendez v. Sunnyvale Life, Inc., No. 14-cv-1771-EJD, 2015 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 81499, at *10-12 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2015) (dismissing section 1981 claim because 

“outside of the conclusory allegation „the disparate treatment and adverse employment actions 

were based on Plaintiff‟s race/origin,” there are no facts in the SAC which support the proposition 

that Emmett terminated Plaintiff out of racial animus, or that Emmett treated Perez more favorably 

because he is of a different race than Plaintiff”); Jimenez v. DTRS St. Francis, LLC, Case No. C 

12-06411 SBA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160620, at *9-10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2013) (dismissing 

section 1981 claim where the plaintiff alleged he was assaulted by two hotel security guards 

because “the mere fact that Plaintiff is identifiable as a Mexican-American, without more, is 

insufficient to raise a plausible inference that the two hotel security guards acted with the intent or 

purpose of discriminating against him because of his race and/or national origin. [Citation] The 

SAC is devoid of any factual content demonstrating that the security guard‟s conduct was racially 

motivated.”); Murray v. Pac. Architects & Eng’rs, Inc., Case No. 2+:15-cv-00087-GMN-NJK, 

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108810, at *10 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2015) (dismissing section 1981 claim 

against supervisor because there were no allegations that the supervisor made or ratified any racial 

acts or remarks, and allegations that the supervisor had disciplined the plaintiff appeared to have 

no relation to the plaintiff‟s race).

In the instant case, Plaintiff argues that her inability to “point to a concurrent racial 

statement with the discrimination is not fatal to her case” because she could “prove specific intent 

through circumstantial evidence.” Opp. at 7-8. However, Plaintiff cites no circumstantial 

evidence; instead, Plaintiff suggests that Whole Foods “acknowledged its past discrimination 

against Plaintiff,” citing Whole Foods‟s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Opp. 

at 8. Plaintiff‟s argument is baseless; Whole Foods never admitted to discriminating against 

Plaintiff, but simply argued that based on the facts alleged by Plaintiff, any asserted disparate 

Case 3:14-cv-05022-EMC Document 60 Filed 03/04/16 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

treatment was based on disability, not race. Docket No. 28 at 5-6 (Mot. to Dismiss SAC). In 

short, there is no evidence -- direct or circumstantial -- that any of the alleged events were the 

result of racial discrimination. While Plaintiff argues that all factual allegations must be taken as 

true and reasonable inferences drawn in Plaintiff‟s favor, she pleads no non-conclusory facts that 

even when construed in her favor, could possibly demonstrate that Whole Foods‟s actions had 

anything to do with race.

“To plead intentional discrimination, plaintiff cannot merely invoke his race in the course 

of a claim‟s narrative and automatically be entitled to pursue relief. Rather, plaintiff must allege 

some facts that demonstrate that race was the reason for defendant‟s actions.” Mesumbe v. 

Howard Univ., 706 F. Supp. 2d 86, 92 (D.D.C. 2010). Plaintiff has failed to allege any such facts, 

and for those reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff‟s complaint.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Whole Foods‟s motion to dismiss. Because this is the Third 

Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff has failed to plead any non-conclusory facts supporting her 

claim of racial discrimination, the Court will dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

This order disposes of Docket No. 52.

The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05022-EMC Document 60 Filed 03/04/16 Page 5 of 5