Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04094/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04094-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

16

are sufficient to survive the City’s 12(b)(6) motion. Section 1981

does not necessarily require that the plaintiffs’ ethnic

characteristics be the source of the alleged discrimination. The

only requirement is that the discrimination be in fact motivated by

racial considerations. See Alizadeh v Safeway Stores, Inc, 802 F2d

111 (5th Cir 1986) (permitting a white female to claim

discrimination due to her marriage to an Iranian male). Here,

plaintiffs appear to allege that City Council President De La Fuente

discriminated against Mi Pueblo and its owners for betraying their

Latino roots. This prejudice led De La Fuente to saddle Mi Pueblo

with bureaucratic red-tape he would not impose on a non-minority

grocery store. See Doc #24 at 11 n7 (“Plaintiffs believe that the

City and Council President De La Fuente would have little opposition

if a Safeway, Whole Foods or Andronicos sought to occupy the former

Albertsons location”). 

An alternative theory suggested by plaintiffs is that City

Council President De La Fuente discriminated against Mi Pueblo for

not being authentic compared to the “small mom-and-pop” Latino

stores scattered throughout the City of Oakland. Some commentators

term this phenomenon the “trap of cultural authenticity,” which

describes the tendency of certain minority cultural traits to

become, in effect, canonized and for the authorities of that culture

to demand its members to comply with these traits or face exclusion

for being inauthentic. See Richard T Ford, Racial Culture: A

Critique. As applied here, De La Fuente viewed Mi Pueblo as an

inauthentic Latino store for operating like Wal-Mart, rather than

conforming to the standard mold. Although this alternative theory

may run afoul of Supreme Court instruction that section 1981

Case 3:06-cv-04094-VRW Document 28 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 1