Jeanjacques v. AMC Entm't Holdings

1

PAULE JEANJACQUES, et al. v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC., et al.

Civil Action No. 21-3670

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 30, 2021

ORDER-MEMORANDUM

Kearney, J.

AND NOW, this 30^th day of September 2021 upon considering Defendant's Motion to dismiss (ECF Doc No. 8), Plaintiffs' Response (ECF Doc. No. 11), and finding Plaintiffs sufficiently plead claims for negligence but fail to sufficiently plead intentional infliction of emotional distress, it is ORDERED Defendant's Motion (ECF Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as we dismiss Plaintiffs' intentional infliction of emotional distress claim without prejudice but require Defendants answer the remaining claims no later than October 14 2021.

Analysis

Paule Jeanjacques and Mayama Kesselly purchased movie tickets for themselves and their children at Philadelphia Mills AMC, a multi-screen movie theater owned and operated by American Multi-Cinema, Inc.^[1] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly, both African-American women, arrived at the theater at 5:00 PM for a 7:00 PM showing of "The Lion King."^[2] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly re-entered the theater at 6:30 PM.^[3] Theater employees then admitted Mses.

Jeanjacques and Kesselly and sent them to their screen.^[4] There is no dispute today the women paid for tickets to see "The Lion King" at 7:00 PM in the theatre.

Multiple patrons approached Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly to confirm their assigned seats.^[5] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly discovered other patrons held duplicate tickets for their seats.^[6] An unidentified employee then asked Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly to leave the theater in front of other patrons.^[7] The employee continued to order Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly to leave after they showed him their tickets.^[8] The women left the theater.^[9] Ms. Kesselly took her child to the bathroom.^[10]

The theater manager approached Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly outside the theater.^[11] He shouted at them and accused them of not paying for their tickets.^[12] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly showed their ticket stubs.^[13] The manager continued to refuse entrance.^[14] The manager shouted "Leave! Get out! Get out!"^[15] The manager "utilized security guards to have [Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly] forcibly removed from the theater."^[16]

Ms. Jeanjacques's child started crying and asked the manager to let them see the movie.^[17]The manager told the child, "You can't see the movie, your mommy didn't pay."^[18] Other employees became involved.^[19] The manager then "loudly" stated to other employees, "you know black people, they don't like to pay for movies."^[20] The manager said he knew the patrons failed to pay because Ms. Kesselly "was hiding," referring to Ms. Kesselly changing her child's diaper.^[21]

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly presented their ticket stubs to other theater employees, requesting admission to see the movie in another theater or a refund.^[22] The manager refused.^[23] He refused to view video footage showing Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly's ticket purchase.^[24] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly called the police.^[25] The manager told the police Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly did not pay for the tickets.^[26] The police asked the manager to review the video footage.^[27]The manager refused.^[28] Ms. Jeanjacques then called the theater's 1-800 number to report the incident.^[29] The incident caused Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly "mental pain and suffering, sleeplessness, paranoia, fear, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, [and] humiliation."^[30]

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly now sue alleging: (1) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) general negligence; and (4) negligence under premises liability. The theater moves to dismiss.^[31] We grant the theater's Motion in part and dismiss Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly's intentional inflectional of emotional distress claim.

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly plead negligence.

The theater argues Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly improperly plead their negligence claims as a matter of pleading procedure by masking them as claims under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[32] It argues Congress provides only injunctive relief through Title II so Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly cannot seek damages.^[33] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly respond their Title II allegations do not extinguish their well-plead negligence claims.^[34] We agree with Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly.

Congress mandates "[a]ll persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race."^[35] Congress provides "a civil action for preventive relief against those violating Title II.^[36] Damages are unavailable.^[37] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(d)(2) and 8(d)(3) govern our construction of pleadings.^[38] Both subsections allow the inclusion of multiple claims in one count based on the same conduct.^[39] The subsections permit alternative claims "despite inconsistencies in both legal and factual allegations."^[40] "[A] court may not construe a plaintiffs first claim as an admission against another alternative . . . claim."^[41] Alternative, inconsistent, or hypothetical pleadings-if simple, direct, and concise-are permissible.^[42]

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly allege three negligence claims. Their allegations are clear and concise claiming liability under Pennsylvania common law. They reference Title II but also plead negligence under Pennsylvania law.^[43] Rule 8 permits such inconsistent pleading.^[44]Referencing Title II does not extinguish well-plead allegations seeking damages. We briefly evaluate each negligence claim on its merits as the theater's procedural argument fails.

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly plead negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention.

Employers can be liable for failing to protect third parties from employees they know, or have reason to know, are likely to cause injury.^[45] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly must plead (1) the theater failed to exercise ordinary care to prevent its employees from causing intentional harm while on its premises, (2) while employees acted outside the scope of their employment, and (3) while knowing, or having reason to know, of its necessity or ability to control the employees.^[46]The employees' earlier behavior must also give the theater notice.^[47]

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly allege the theater failed to properly hire, train, and retrain its employees to prevent racial profiling and discrimination.^[48] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly allege theater employees directed racial insults at them.^[49] We assume these facts are true. There are sufficient facts to plausibly allege a reasonable inference of negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention.

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly plead general negligence and premises liability negligence.

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly must plead negligence by showing: (1) a duty of care; (2) breach of the duty; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage.^[50] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly are business invitees.^[51] The theater owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect their business invitees from third-party conduct if it has reason to anticipate such conduct.^[52]

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly allege the theater breached their duty to protect them from racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination.^[53] The women also allege the theater's failure to properly hire, train, and supervise its employees caused the discriminatory conduct.^[54] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly allege the incident resulted in "mental pain and suffering, sleeplessness, paranoia, fear, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, and monetary damages."^[55] We assume these facts are true. Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly plausibly allege facts allowing us to reasonably infer general negligence and premises liability negligence.

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly do not plead the outrageous conduct necessary to proceed on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

The theater argues Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly fail to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because they failed to plead extreme and outrageous conduct. Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly argue the theater acted outrageously by ejecting them from the theater based on race and lying to police. We agree with the theater because Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly fail to plead threats of violence required for outrageous conduct.

Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly must plead four elements to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress "(1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; and (4) the distress must be severe."^[56] The theater challenges the first element. Pennsylvania judges apply a "stringent standard" to the extreme and outrageous element.^[57] "[O]nly the most clearly desperate and ultra extreme conduct" will suffice.^[58] Mses. Jeanjacques and Kesselly must plead the theater's conduct is "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society."^[59]"Invidious discrimination is not alone sufficient to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim."^[60] Intentional infliction of emotional distress claims may proceed if the conduct is egregious and involves "assault or threats of assault."^[61] In Lane v. Cole, Judge Waldman found plaintiffs plead intentional infliction of emotional distress where defendants' violent...