2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-8-2010 

# Cur t i s P a sch al v

. B i ll y B e ru, Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2764

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C ur t i s P as ch al v

. B i lly Be r u, Inc " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1551. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1551NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2764

___________ CU RTI S HY RA M PASCHA L, A ppel l ant

v. BI LL Y BERU, I NC.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 01144) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N or a B arr yFi s cher

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February1, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 8, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pr o s e appe l l antC ur t i s H yr am P as chal appea l s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia g ra n tin g th e d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to d i s mi s s h i s c o mp l a i n t . W e wi l l a f f i r m. B ecause the part i es ar e fam i l i ar w i t h the hi st oryand fact s of t he case, and becau se2

t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s m emora ndum or derand mem or andum opi ni on s etfor t h t he al l egat i ons of the compl ai ntand the r el evantdet ai l s of the l i t i gat i on, w e w i l l notpr ovi de a d e ta ile d a c c o u n t. I n A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 , P a s c h a l in itia te d h is la w s u it a g a in s t B illy B e ru , In c . Pas chal al l eged di s cr i m i nat or yt r eatm entbas ed on hi s r ace w hi l e patr oni zi ng one of the defe ndant ’ s eat i ng es t abl i s hm ent s and s oughtr edr es s under42 U . S. C . § 2000a. T he D istric t C o u rt se v e ra l ti m e s a llo w e d P a sc h a l to f ile a m e n d e d c o m p lain ts, in lig h t o f h is pr o s e s t atus . I n s um m ary , Pas chal , an A fr i can- A m er i can, cont ended ( 1) he w as har as s ed b ya w h ite p a tro n w h ile h e a te a t th e re sta u ra n t, an d th e b a rte n d e r ig n o re d h is c o m p lain t; ( 2) he w as rus hed w hi l e ea t i ng and w as the onl ycus t om ert o be gi ven a c heck bythe bar t enderbefor e he a t e; and ( 3) an empl oy ee of the r es t aur antr efus ed t o pr ovi de i nform at i on aboutl odgi ng a di s cr i m i nat i on compl ai nt . Pas chal s oughtas s or t ed r el i ef in c lu d in g d a m a g e s. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n u n d e r R u le 12( b) ( 6) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e t o di s m i s s the compl ai nt , butnot ed that on l yi njunct i ve rel i ef w as avai l able t o P aschal for hi s sect i on 20 00 a cl ai m s. Pas chal t hen fi l ed hi s t hi r d amended compl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . § 1981. T he defe ndantfi l ed anotherR ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m for r el i ef. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng on t he mot i on on M ar ch 17, 2009, dur i ng w hi ch Pas chal t es t i fi ed underoath t o cl ar i fythe fa ctual al l egat i ons i n hi s compl ai nt . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal l ow ed ar gum entand s uppl ement al br i efi ng. O n A pr i l 23, 2009, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the def endant ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , fi ndi ng thatPas chal had notT he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatPas chal cl ar i fi ed hi s al l egat i ons i n hi s t es t i m onyatt he 1 hear i ng, s t at i ng t hathe compl ai ned abouthavi ng the che ck pr es ent ed t o hi m befor e he a t e, t he bart endert ook t he che ck bac k, and he then at e hi s m eal and pai d aft erhe had f i ni s hed e a tin g a n d d ri n k in g . (D is tr ic t C o u rt A p ri l 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 M e m . O p . a t 6 .) 3 p lea d e d a n yf

a c ts re g a rd in g th e th re e in c id e n ts d e sc rib e d in th e c o m p lain t th a t w o u ld i nd i cat e t hat he w as depri ved , on accou nt of r ace dis cri m i nati on , of an yben efi t s, p riv ileg e s, te rm s, a n d c o n d iti o n s o f h is c o n tra c tu a l re latio n sh ip w ith th e re sta u ra n t in vi ol at i on of s ect i on 1981. Fori ns t ance , the D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatPas chal w as not deni ed s ervi ce a nd w as notr equi r ed t o payforhi s m eal befor e he c om pl et ed i tand w as th u s p e rm itt e d to c a rryo u t h is c o n tra c t w ith th e re sta u ra n t o n th e sa m e ter m s a s w h ite cus t om er s . A l s o, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound no al l egat i ons r egar di ng the natur e of the

1 har as s m entbyt he w hi t e cus t om er , thatthe r es t aur antorempl oy ees had anyr ol e i n t he har as s m enti n t he cont extof a c ont r actual r el at i ons hi p, orthatthe r efus al t o pr ovi de i nform at i on aboutl odgi ng a di s cr i m i nat i on compl ai ntdepr i ved Pas chal of a c ont r actual r i ght . T he D i s t r i ctC our tagai n al l ow ed Pas chal t o amend hi s compl ai nt , not i ng thatt he t hi r d amended compl ai ntas s er t ed a s ect i on 1981 cl ai m forthe fi r s tt i m e and thatPas chal t h u s h a d n o p r i o ro p p o r tu n i t yt o a me n d h i s s e c t i o n 1 9 8 1 c l a i m. Pas chal fi l ed a f

our t h amended compl ai nt , and the def endantfi l ed anotherm ot i on t o di s m i s s . O n J une 8, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatthe fa ctual al l egat i ons w er e s ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame as t hos e cont ai ned i n t he thi r d amended compl ai ntand d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t f o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d in its A p ri l 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 m e m o ra n d u m o p in io n .A lth o u g h P ash al m aintains in h is brief tha t he w as a sk ed to p ayh is ch ec k b ef o re 2 ea ti n g , h e a g ain c o n firm s tha t he re fu sed to p ayb ef o re h e a te his m ea l. S ee A p p ell an t’ s B r . at2. E ven though t hi s cas e i nvol ves a mot i on t o di s m i s s underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) , w e may 3 cons i derPas chal ’ s t es t i m onyatt he hea r i ng, as w el l as s t at ement s i n hi s br i ef, t o cl ar i fy the a ll eg ati o n s in the co m p lai n t. S ee M aio v . A etna Inc . , 2 2 1 F . 3 d 4 7 2 , 4 8 5 n . 1 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 4 F u rth e r, th e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t ita p p e a re d th a t P a sc h a l in ten d e d to re v iv e h is c laim unders ect i on 2000a, w i t h al l egat i ons i ndi cat i ng thatthe r es t aur antm ayhave r equi r ed P asc h al t o p rep ayfo r his m ea l w h il e a w h it e c u stom er w as n o t ask ed to d o so . H o w ev er, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thati n l i ghtof Pas chal ’ s l at eramendm ent s and t es t i m ony conce r ni ng t he cl ai m , t he cl ai m of di s cr i m i nat i on unders ect i on 2000a fa i l ed, and that amendm entof the compl ai ntw oul d be fut i l e. 2 P aschal app eal s. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se p le n a ry re v ie w o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e rs g ra n tin g th e d e f e n d a n t’ s m o tio n to d is m is s . M cG overn v. C i t yof Phi l a. , 554 F. 3d 114, 115 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . I n det erm i ni ng w hether th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ), w e “ a c c e p t all fac tual al l egat i ons as t rue, cons t rue the compl ai nti n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i ff, and det erm i ne w hether , underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt , the pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” Phi l l i ps v. C ount yof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 233 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). 3 Pas chal ’ s m ai n ar gum enton appea l appea r s t o be thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tm i s appl i ed th e lib e ra l n o tice p lea d in g sta n d a rd u n d e r R u le 8 (a ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il5

Pr ocedur e. I n s uppor t , Pas chal as s ert s thata R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on m us tnotbe gr ant ed “unl es s i tappea r s bey ond doubtt hatthe pl ai nt i ff c an pr ove no s etof fa ct s i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m w hi ch w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at4 ¶6 ( quot i ng C onl eyv. G i b s o n , 3 5 5 U . S . 4 1 , 4 5 - 4 6 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) . W e n o t e th a ti n B e l l A t l a n t i c C o rp . v . T w o m b l y, 55 0 U . S . 54 4, 56 2-63 (20 07 ), t he S up rem e C ou rtrej ect ed C on l ey ’s “no setof f act s” l anguage . See Phi l l i ps , 515 F. 3d at232- 33. R ul e 8( a) r equi r es notm er el ya s hor tand pl ai n s t at ement ; r ather , t he compl ai ntm us tal l ege e nough fac t s thats ugges tthe r equi r ed el ement s of the cl ai m . I d. at234- 35. Pas chal ’ s cont ent i ons i n hi s br i ef s ugges tthatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on w as bas ed on t echni cal pl eadi ng r equi r ement s and on the l evel of fa ctual det ai l , butt he r ecor d r efl ect s thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notdi s m i s s the ac t i on on t hos e gr ounds . I ndeed, t he D i s t r i ctC our tal l ow ed Pas chal t o amend hi s compl ai nt se v e ra l ti m e s a n d a lso h e ld a h e a rin g f o r P a sc h a l to c lar if

yth e f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s in h is c o m p lain t. W e not e thatPas chal does notdi r ect l ychal l enge a nyof the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons r egar di ng t he fa i l ur e t o s t at e cl ai m s of di s cr i m i nat i on unders ect i ons 1981 and 2000a. U pon r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of t he cl ai m s , fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons gi ven i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s A pr i l 23, 2009 m e m o ra n d u m o p in io n a n d Ju n e 8 , 2 0 0 9 m e m o ra n d u m o rd e r. T h e f a c ts a lleg e d in P a sc h a l’s la ter a m e n d e d c o m p lain ts a n d c lar if ied in h is s w o rn tes tim o n yd o n o t su p p o rt a cl ai m of di s cr i m i nat i on byt he def endanti n t he maki ng and enf or ci ng of a c ont r actori n apl ace of publ i c ac comm odat i on.

W e w ill a f

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t.



### 6