Opinion ID: 37074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: GM's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment

Text: 15 When the district court granted GM's motion, it did not state whether it was doing so under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56(c). GM submitted documentary evidence to support its claim that it was a separate legal entity from Sewell. However, that does not clarify under which standard this court should review the dismissal because the documents at least arguably relate to Causey's complaint by explaining the relationship between Sewell and GM. See Collins, 224 F.3d at 498-99. Regardless of whether the dismissal is construed as one arising under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56(c), the district court did not err in granting GM's motion. 16 This court considered a similar claim in Arguello v. Conoco, Inc., 207 F.3d 803 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 874, 121 S.Ct. 177, 148 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). Arguello involved a § 1981 claim brought in relation to the racially discriminatory acts of clerks at independently owned Conoco gas stations. Id. at 805-08. The plaintiffs sought to recover against Conoco, which did not own the gas stations where the alleged discrimination occurred. Id. at 807. This court concluded that the plaintiffs could not recover against Conoco unless the plaintiffs showed that the gas stations had an agency relationship with Conoco. Id. (citing Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 393, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 73 L.Ed.2d 835 (1982)). 17 The court held that Conoco had no agency relationship with the gas stations because Conoco lacked control over the daily operations of the gas stations. Id. at 808. This lack of control was evidenced by the contracts between Conoco and the gas stations, which specified that each store was an independent business. Id. Because there was no agency relationship, Conoco was not liable for the acts underlying the suit. Id. 18 Similarly, the documents provided by GM show that Sewell is an independent business and that GM does not control Sewell's daily operations. Accordingly, GM has no agency relationship with Sewell and cannot be held liable for any improper acts that occurred at the Sewell dealership. Moreover, because Causey eventually had his car repaired under warranty by another authorized GM dealer, Causey cannot show that an enumerated contract right was violated. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Causey's claim against GM.