Flournoy v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp.

ERIK FLOURNOY, Plaintiff v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND TRT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants

Case No. 1:19-CV-1128-RP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

September 21, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed on March 11, 2020 (Dkt. 7); Plaintiff's Response, filed on April 8, 2020 (Dkt. 20); and Defendants' Reply, filed on April 15, 2020 (Dkt. 21). The District Court referred the motion and related filings to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

I. Background

Plaintiff Erik Flournoy stayed at the Omni Downtown Austin Hotel from June 19 to June 21, 2019, while attending a business conference. Dkt. 1 ¶ 14. Flournoy is an African American man with dreadlocks. Id. ¶ 11. Flournoy alleges that on June 19, 2019, while sitting in the hotel bar, Omni employees approached him and asked whether he was a guest at the hotel. Id. ¶¶ 16-19. When Flournoy asked Omni employees why he was singled out, reasons they gave included that patrons were not able "to sit at the bar and have water, to someone having made a complaint about him, to the bartender stating Plaintiff had nowhere to stay that night." Id. ¶ 20. Flournoy later learned that another conference attendee, "a dark-skinned female, was also asked if she was staying on the property and to provide her last name and room number for no other reason other than her race." Id. ¶ 25. The next morning, Omni's Director of Rooms told Flournoy that a couple Flournoy had joined for a drink the night before had complained that he was harassing them and called the police. Id. ¶ 27. The couple later told Flournoy that they had not complained about him or called the police. Id. ¶ 34.

Flournoy contends that Omni's actions "were solely due to the color of his skin and his appearance (dreadlocks) and had nothing to do with any legitimate business reason as other non-African American similarly situated individuals were not treated in the same manner." Id. ¶ 29. On November 20, 2019, Flournoy filed suit against Defendants Omni Hotels Management Corporation and TRT Holdings, Inc. (collectively, "Omni"), alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-2000(a)(6). Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 35-40.

On March 11, 2020, Omni filed this Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review Plaintiff's claims. In the alternative, Omni argues that Flournoy fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

II. Legal Standards

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Rule 12(b)(1) allows a party to move to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only exercise jurisdiction expressly conferred by the Constitution and federal statutes. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil cases "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," and over civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and in which diversity of citizenship exists between the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is warranted when "it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief." Gilbert v. Donahoe, 751 F.3d 303, 307 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001)). "Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161.

Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction properly raised by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). See Cobb v. Cent. States, 461 F.3d 632, 635 (5th Cir. 2006); Lee v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 837 F.3d 523, 534 (5th Cir. 2016). "Federal courts have no jurisdiction unless a case or controversy is presented by a party with standing to litigate." De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632, 645 (W.D. Tex. 2014), aff'd sub nom. De Leon v. Abbott, 791 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2015). The requirement of standing has three elements: (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 167 (1997). The injury cannot be merely "conjectural or hypothetical." Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009). Causation requires that the injury "fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant," rather than to "the independent action of some third party not before the court." Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976). Redressability requires that it is likely, "as opposed to merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.'" Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (quoting Simon, 426 U.S. at 38, 43). The party invoking federal subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each element. Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161.

B. Failure to State a Claim

Rule 12(b)(6) allows a party to move to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "[t]he court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has explained that a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the [nonmovant] pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the [movant] is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.

While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). The court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced in the complaint. Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010).

III. Analysis

As noted, Flournoy asserts a claim under Title II, which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation. Flournoy argues that Omni violated Title II by racially discriminating against him by failing to provide him "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation." Dkt. 1 at ¶ 39. Flournoy also alleges that Omni's actions violated § 1981 by failing to provide him with "the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens." Id. ¶ 36

Omni argues that Flournoy's lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, failure to state a claim. Courts generally consider jurisdictional attacks before addressing other grounds for dismissal. Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161. Accordingly, the Court addresses Omni's jurisdictional arguments first.

A. Jurisdiction

Omni argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review Flournoy's claims. First, Omni contends that Flournoy failed to comply with Title II's notice requirement before filing suit. Second, Omni submits that Flournoy lacks standing because he has not pled a claim for injunctive relief, but Title II's exclusive remedy provision limits his remedies under both Title II and § 1981 to such relief.

1. Title II's Notice Requirement

Omni argues that both of Flournoy's claims should be dismissed because he has failed to meet the notice requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(c). That section provides:

In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this subchapter which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement proceedings.

Omni contends that, under § 2000a-3(c), when a state or local law permits a local authority to investigate alleged discrimination, a plaintiff must notify that authority before filing suit for a violation of the public accommodation laws. Dkt. 7 at 4. Omni claims that under Title 5, Chapter 2 of the...