Bakhtiari v. Doe

ALI BAKHTIARI, Plaintiff, v. DOE, et al., Defendants.

No. 22 C 2406

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

December 13, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

SARA L. ELLIS, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Ali Bakhtiari brings this pro se lawsuit against Defendants Westmont Donut, Inc. (“Westmont Donut”), Wendy Doe and Cassey Roe (the “Store Managers”), Rishad Rajabali and the Rajabali Group Inc. (collectively, with Westmont Donut and the Store Managers, the “Westmont Defendants”), Inspire Brands, Inc. (“Inspire Brands”), and Katie Johnson, Nils Okeson, and Bridget Peterson (collectively, the “Individual Inspire Defendants”). Against the Westmont Defendants and Inspire, Bakhtiari alleges refusal to serve and refusal to allow commercial participation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C § 2000e et seq. (Count I), the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1-101 et seq. (Count II), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count III), and 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Count IV). Bakhtiari also brings state law claims against various of the Defendants alleging assault; battery; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligent hiring retention, supervision, entrustment, failure to train, and failure to direct; failure to supervise, monitor, train, and direct a franchisee; and spoliation of evidence (Counts V-XVIII).

Inspire and the Individual Inspire Defendants (collectively, the “Inspire Defendants”) move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6).

Because Bakhtiari has not established the Court's personal jurisdiction over the Inspire Defendants, the Court grants their motion. The Westmont Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Because Bakhtiari has not sufficiently alleged racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1982 or that he met the procedural requirements required to file suit under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, the Court dismisses Bakhtiari's federal claims against the Westmont Defendants. The Court requests further information from Bakhtiari regarding his domicile before it addresses Bakhtiari's state law claims.

BACKGROUND^[1]

I. Parties

Westmont Donut and the Rajabali Group own and operate the Dunkin' Donuts (“Dunkin'”) store at issue. Rajabali owns and operates the Rajabali Group and Westmont Donut. Doe and Roe manage the Dunkin' store. Although Bakhtiari alleges that Inspire Brands is the business manager, franchisor, and operator of the Dunkin' store, Inspire Brands is the indirect parent company of the Dunkin' store's franchisor, Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC (“DDF”). The Individual Inspire Defendants all work in Inspire's legal department.

II. Factual Background

On December 4, 2021, Bakhtiari sought service at the Dunkin' store located in Westmont, Illinois. Earlier that morning, Bakhtiari used the Dunkin' mobile application to place an online order for curbside pickup. When Bakhtiari arrived at the Dunkin' store, he called the store to inform the store employees that he was waiting for his order. When no employee appeared, Bakhtiari entered the store, where Doe informed him that the store no longer offered curbside pickup. Bakhtiari and Doe began to argue over the order and Bakhtiari asked Doe to check the store's order records so they could refund him. Doe told Bakhtiari that she could not refund his order, referring to him as “Ali Baba.” Doc. 1 ¶¶ 17-18. Roe, the other Store Manager, then approached Bakhtiari from behind, shoved him, and ordered him to leave while making derogatory comments-calling Bakhtiari, among other things, a “rag head” and “camel jockey.” Id. ¶ 20. Bakhtiari then left the store.

Later on December 4, Bakhtiari contacted the police and the DuPage County state's attorney office to report the incident. Bakhtiari also sent a memorandum to Okeson-Inspire Brands' General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer-and Rajabali requesting that Okeson preserve footage of the Dunkin' store from the incident. Johnson, a Litigation Specialist at Inspire Brands, replied that she would forward his memorandum to those in possession and control of the requested footage. She forwarded his email to Rajabali. On December 6, Bakhtiari emailed Johnson, Okeson, and Peterson, Inspire Brands' Director of Litigation, requesting preservation of the personnel files of Doe and Roe. Again, Johnson forwarded Bakhtiari's email to Rajabali. On January 4, 2022, Bakhtiari sent another email to the Individual Inspire Defendants reiterating his request for evidence preservation. Peterson responded, informing Bakhtiari that the Individual Inspire Defendants forwarded his requests to the owner and operator of the Dunkin' store. She further wrote that Inspire Brands did not possess any of the information Bakhtiari sought and asked that he direct future correspondence to Westmont Donut. Peterson provided contact information where Bakhtiari could reach her.

Bakhtiari followed up with the Individual Inspire Defendants on April 25, 2022, regarding the footage and personnel files. The next day, Inspire Brands' general counsel office informed Bakhtiari over the phone that the information he requested had been “accidentally erased!” Doc. 1 ¶ 11.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) challenges the Court's jurisdiction over a party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). When a defendant raises a Rule 12(b)(2) challenge, “the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction.” Curry v. Revolution Lab'ys, LLC, 949 F.3d 385, 392 (7th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). If the Court rules on the Rule 12(b)(2) motion without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Id. at 392-93; N. Grain Mktg., LLC v. Greving, 743 F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 2014). In resolving a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, the Court “accept[s] as true all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint,” Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665, 672 (7th Cir. 2012), and “reads the complaint liberally with every inference drawn in favor of [the] plaintiff,” GCIU-Emp. Ret. Fund, 565 F.3d at 1020 n.1. However, if the defendant submits “evidence opposing the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff [ ] must similarly submit affirmative evidence supporting the court's exercise of jurisdiction.” Matlin, 921 F.3d at 705. The Court “accept[s] as true any facts contained in the defendant's affidavits that remain unrefuted by the plaintiff,” GCIU-Emp. Ret. Fund, 565 F.3d at 1020 n.1, but resolves “any factual disputes in the [parties'] affidavits in favor of the plaintiff,” Felland, 682 F.3d at 672.

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss depends on whether the defendant raises a facial or factual challenge. Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169, 173 (7th Cir. 2015). If a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the allegations regarding subject matter jurisdiction-a facial challenge-the Court “must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences” in the plaintiff's favor. Id. “[W]hen evaluating a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction,” the Court employs the Twombly-Iqbal “plausibility” standard, “which is the same standard used to evaluate facial challenges to claims under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. at 174. If, however, the defendant contests the truth of the jurisdictional allegations-a factual challenge-the Court may look beyond the pleadings and view any competent proof submitted by the parties to determine if the plaintiff has established subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. at 173; Apex Digit., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440, 444-45 (7th Cir. 2009); Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 543 (7th Cir. 2006).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, not its merits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor. Kubiak v. City of Chicago, 810 F.3d 476, 480-81 (7th Cir. 2016). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must assert a facially plausible claim and provide fair notice to the defendant of the claim's basis. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728-29 (7th Cir. 2014). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

The Court construes Bakhtiari's complaint liberally because he is proceeding pro se. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,' and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards that formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976))).

ANALYSIS

I. Inspire Defendants

The Inspire Defendants argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them because they do not have sufficient contacts with Illinois. In diversity cases, the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant only if personal jurisdiction would be proper in an Illinois court. Hyatt Int'l Corp. v. Coco, 302 F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir. 2002). Illinois allows for personal jurisdiction to the full...