Court Opinion

ID: 9379105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 18:00:28.444784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:59.876144
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30460        Document: 00516676047             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                                                               March 14, 2023
                                       No. 22-30460
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk

   Carmen A. Spears,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Nanaki, L.L.C., doing business as Days Inn & Suites by
   Wyndham Kinder,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:21-CV-3788

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Plaintiff-Appellant Carmen Spears has alleged that Defendant-
   Appellee Nanaki LLC d/b/a Days Inn & Suites by Wyndham Kinder
   (“Nanaki”), upon learning that she was pregnant, terminated her
   employment, or otherwise revoked its job offer, in violation of Title VII of
   the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In response to Spears’ complaint, Nanaki filed

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30460      Document: 00516676047           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30460

   a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
   Procedure, asserting that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because
   Nanaki did not have the fifteen employees required by Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
   § 2000e(b). The district court agreed, treating § 2000e(b)’s numerical
   threshold as a jurisdictional requirement rather than a substantive element of
   Spears’ Title VII claim.
          In Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006),               however, the
   Supreme Court held that the numerosity requirement in § 2000e(b) is not
   jurisdictional. Despite Nanaki’s criticism of that ruling, it stands. See Juino
   v. Livingston Parish Fire Dist. No. 5, 717 F.3d 431, 433 n.1 (5th Cir. 2013)
   (under Arbaugh, district court erred in treating motion as a jurisdictional,
   rather than evidentiary, challenge). Indeed, the Supreme Court has
   employed the same approach in evaluating other statutory requirements.
   See, e.g., Reed v. Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 161–69 (2010)
   (employing Arbaugh analysis in concluding that 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)’s
   registration requirement does not restrict subject matter jurisdiction). We
   have done the same. See, e.g., Biziko v. Van Horne, 981 F.3d 418, 421 (5th Cir.
   2020) (utilizing Arbaugh analysis in concluding that enterprise element of 29
   U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A) is nonjurisdictional); Gulf Restoration Network v.
   Salazar, 683 F.3d 158, 172–74 (5th Cir. 2010) (utilizing Arbaugh analysis in
   concluding that 43 U.S.C. § 1349(c)(3)(A) is nonjurisdictional). Thus, the
   district court erred in its Rule 12 (b)(1) jurisdictional assessment.
          Nanaki’s motion also seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Dismissal
   under Rule 12(b)(6) is warranted if the complaint does not contain sufficient
   factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on
   its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.
   v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In evaluating motions to dismiss filed
   under Rule 12(b)(6), the court “must accept all well-pleaded facts as true,
   and . . . view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Campbell v.

                                           2
Case: 22-30460         Document: 00516676047                Page: 3       Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                           No. 22-30460

   Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th. Cir. 1986). Further, “[a]ll
   questions of fact and any ambiguities in the controlling substantive law must
   be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.” Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 357 (5th
   Cir. 2001). In determining whether a plaintiff’s claims survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
   motion to dismiss, the factual information to which the court addresses its
   inquiry is limited to (1) the facts set forth in the complaint, (2) documents
   attached to or incorporated by reference in the complaint, and (3) matters of
   which judicial notice may be taken under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. See
   Norris v. Hurst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 461, n. 9 (5th Cir. 2007); R2 Invs. LDC
   v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 640, n. 2 (5th Cir. 2005). 1
           Here, Spears’ complaint alleges, on information and belief, that
   Nanaki has employed fifteen employees for the requisite period of time.
   However, because the district court concluded that dismissal under Rule
   12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction was appropriate, it did not evaluate the merit
   of Nanaki’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Thus, that assessment
   will be necessary on remand.
           Having concluded that the district court improperly dismissed
   Plaintiff-Appellant Carmen Spears’ Title VII claims for lack of subject matter
   jurisdiction, we REVERSE the district court’s May 23, 2022 judgment of
   dismissal and REMAND this matter for further proceedings consistent with
   this opinion.

           1
              When a defendant attaches documents to its motion that are referenced in the
   complaint and are central to the plaintiff’s claims, the court may also properly consider
   those documents. Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.
   2004); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). “In so
   attaching, the defendant merely assists the plaintiff in establishing the basis of the suit, and
   the court in making the elementary determination of whether a claim has been stated.”
   Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 2000).

                                                  3