Court Opinion

ID: 9381348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 19:01:15.541097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:31.906168
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    SHANE JOSEPH BOLAND DOYLE,

                             Plaintiff,                        Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-02591 (JMC)

          v.

    AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,

                             Defendant.

                                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

         In June 2022, Plaintiff Shane Joseph Boland Doyle filed a Complaint against Defendant

American Chemical Society (ACS) in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.1 See ECF 1-

1. Doyle alleges that the ACS discriminated against him on the basis of his disability and

committed a litany of torts including defamation, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional

infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 4. He seeks, among other things, damages and a protective

order against the ACS Human Resources department. Id.

         The ACS removed the case to federal court, invoking this Court’s federal question

jurisdiction as the basis for removal. See ECF 1. The ACS then filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing

that Doyle failed to satisfy the pleading requirements outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P 8(a). ECF 5 at 2–

3. Namely, the ACS argues that Doyle did not include enough factual assertions to support the

claims alleged in his Complaint. Id. at 3. The ACS also argues that Doyle’s fraud claim fails to

meet the heightened pleading standard specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). See id. at 2.

1
  Unless otherwise indicated, the formatting of quoted materials has been modified throughout this opinion, for
example, by omitting internal quotation marks and citations, and by incorporating emphases, changes to capitalization,
and other bracketed alterations therein. All pincites to documents filed on the docket are to the automatically generated
ECF Page ID number that appears at the top of each page.

                                                           1
        Doyle responded to the ACS’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF 8. He argues that his Complaint is

sufficient and makes no mention of seeking to amend his Complaint or drop any claims. As an

Exhibit to his Response, however, he attached a new Complaint written on this District’s template

form for employment discrimination claims. See ECF 8-1 at 26–38. This new Complaint includes

more factual details than Doyle’s original Complaint, compare id. at 30 with ECF 1-1 at 4–5, but

alleges different legal claims. Whereas the original Complaint includes a litany of tort claims, the

new Complaint alleges only claims related to discrimination. It is not clear whether Doyle meant

to supplement his allegations or supersede his original complaint.2

        The Court concludes that these inconsistencies prevent the ACS from having notice of the

claims against which it must defend. The Court therefore grants the ACS’s Motion to Dismiss.

However, because Doyle could cure his pleading’s deficiency by amending his Complaint, the

Court dismisses his claims without prejudice. See Belizan v. Hershon, 434 F.3d 579, 583 (D.C.

Cir. 2006). That means that Doyle can file a new Complaint. The Court will give him thirty days

to do so.

        If Doyle decides to file a new Complaint and pursue his claims, he must clearly state which

legal claims he intends to bring. He must also provide more factual details to support his claims.

While the new Complaint provides some details, Doyle should write a short story explaining who

did what to him. The story should include as much detail about the factual background of the case

as possible.

2
 Given the background principle that pro se filings should be construed liberally, the Court believes that the new
Complaint Doyle included in his Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss could be deemed an Amended
Complaint. But, for the sake of clarity, the Court will refrain from assigning it that label in light of the Court’s
confusion. Doyle’s next Complaint, should he continue to pursue his claims, will be deemed his First Amended
Complaint.

                                                         2
       Finally, the Court notes that Doyle filed a Motion for Default Judgment. Default judgment

is appropriate only where a defendant is “essentially unresponsive.” Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d

831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980). That is not the case here. The ACS removed the action to federal court,

then soon after filed a Motion to Dismiss. Given the strong presumption for resolving cases on the

merits, the Court denies Doyle’s Motion for Default Judgment.

       Accordingly, it is hereby

       ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 5, is GRANTED;

       ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF 1-1, is dismissed without prejudice;

       ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, ECF 13, is DENIED;

       ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is due on April 21, 2023.

       SO ORDERED.

       DATE: March 22, 2023

                                                            Jia M. Cobb
                                                            U.S. District Court Judge

                                                3