Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05027/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05027-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1 

Case No. 5:14-cv-05027-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN NKWUO,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

METROPCS, INC., et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-05027-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Re: Docket No. 37)

Defendants MetroPCS, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. move to dismiss Plaintiff John 

Nkwuo’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Because the court finds that Nkwuo’s claims 

are insufficiently alleged and fail as a matter of law, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED but with 

leave to amend. 

I.

Nkwuo brought this suit and seeks relief on seven claims that MetroPCS installed certain 

devices used by law enforcement that record incoming (“pen register”) and outgoing (“trap and 

trace device”) numbers on his phone.1 His specific claims are: (1) breach of covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing; (2) breach of contract; (3) harassment and hostile environments; (4) intentional 

infliction of emotional distress; (5) discrimination based on race and national origin; (6) invasion of 

privacy and (7) violation of Fourth Amendment rights. 

 

1 See, e.g., Docket No. 1 at 2. 

Case 5:14-cv-05027-PSG Document 48 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

Case No. 5:14-cv-05027-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

II.

This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties further 

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

At this stage of the case, the court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as 

true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.2 The court’s review is 

limited to the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and 

matters of which the court may take judicial notice.3 However, the court need not accept as true 

allegations that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.4 

III.

“[D]ismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”5 If Plaintiff fails to proffer “enough facts 

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” the complaint may be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.6 A claim is facially plausible “when the pleaded 

factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.”7 Against these standards, none of Nkwuo’s claims pass muster. 

First, Nkwuo’s first and second claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing and breach of contract fail because Nkwuo fails to state the terms of the contract 

supposedly giving rise to any such covenant or otherwise attach a copy of the contract.8 Nor does 

Nkwuo allege what law governs. 

 

2 See Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008). 

3 See id.

4 See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007) (“a wholly conclusory statement of [a] claim” will not 

survive a motion to dismiss). 

5 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

6 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 

7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). 

8 Cf. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

Case 5:14-cv-05027-PSG Document 48 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

Case No. 5:14-cv-05027-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

Second, Nkwuo’s third claim for harassment and hostile environment fails because Nkwuo

does not allege any facts in support of this claim or identify what law gave rise to such a claim. 

“Hostile environment” is a doctrine in the employment context and thus, Nkwuo’s claim fails as a 

matter of law as he does not and cannot allege an employment relationship with Defendants.9 

Third, Nkwuo’s fourth claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is insufficient 

because Nkwuo fails to allege what law governs his claim for intentional infliction of emotional 

distress making it impossible for Defendants to respond to this claim. Nkwuo further fails to state 

a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because he provides no factual allegations 

showing the collection of phone numbers—by a communications provider—was “outrageous.” 

Nor does he show that Defendants otherwise were not lawfully permitted to engage in the conduct 

of which he complains.10 

Fourth, Nkwuo’s fifth claim alleges discrimination based on race and national origin under 

Title V and Title VII of the Civil Right Act. Neither claim is sufficient. Title V establishes the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that protects against discrimination affecting the right to vote.11 

No such rights are involved here. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination.12 Because 

Nkwuo has alleged a customer—and not an employment—relationship with Defendants, he fails to 

state a claim as a matter of law.13 

Fifth, Nkwuo’s sixth claim for invasion of privacy falls under Rule 12(b)(6) because 

Nkwuo fails to allege the law under which his privacy was invaded. Nkwuo’s complaint also lacks

factual allegations showing that there is any protectable privacy right or expectation of privacy in 

the collection or disclosure of phone numbers by a mobile phone service provider with which 

 

9 Id. at 7-8. 

10 Id. at 8-10. 

11 See 42 U.S.C. § 1975. 

12 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000. 

13 See Docket No. 2 at 10-11. 

Case 5:14-cv-05027-PSG Document 48 Filed 06/05/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 5:14-cv-05027-PSG Document 48 Filed 06/05/15 Page 4 of 4