Melson v. Vista World Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO: 12-135

SHELIA MELSON v. VISTA WORLD INC. AND ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 12-135

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SECTION: "H"(4)

Dated: November 30, 2012

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are the following Motions: (1) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendant Vista World, Inc. (R. Doc. 12); (2) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by Global Readers Services, Inc. (R. Doc. 13); (3) Motion to Dismiss the Amending and Superseding Complaint filed by Vista World, Inc., Global Readers Services, Inc., and Jackie Abdo (R. Doc. 36).

For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss the Amending and Superseding Complaint (R. Doc. 36) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff Sheila Melson's claims against Global Readers Services, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's battery claim andretaliatory discharge claim shall remain pending. The Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (R. Doc. 12) and the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (R. Doc. 13) are DENIED AS MOOT.

BACKGROUND

As alleged in her Complaint, Plaintiff Shelia Melson worked as a telemarketer for Defendant Vista World, Inc. ("Vista World") (alleged to comprise a single business entity with Defendant Global Readers Services, Inc. ("Global")). (R. Doc. 33 ¶4.) In response to allegations that Plaintiff used racial slurs when referring to her co-workers, Plaintiff's desk was moved by the Operations Manager for Vista World—Defendant Jackie Abdo ("Abdo")—"to a spot behind the main door." (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.) From November 11, 2011 to December 3, 2011, Plaintiff was allegedly "hit by the door as it opened 10-15 times per day."

Plaintiff filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on November 16, 2011, and December 5, 2011. (Id. at ¶11). Abdo fired Plaintiff on December 7, 2011. (Id. at ¶9.)

Plaintiff filed her original complaint pro se on January 27, 2012. (R. Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleged racial discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliatory discharge against Defendants Vista World and Global. (Id.) Vista World and Global filed separate Motions to Dismiss on April 10, 2012 (R. Docs. 12; 13), which Plaintiff opposed on April 17, 2012 (R. Docs. 16; 17). Plaintiff filed through counsel an Amended and Superseding Complaint ("Amended Complaint") on June 29, 2012 andadded Abdo as a Defendant. (R. Doc. 33.) Plaintiff abandoned her discrimination claims, maintained her claim for retaliatory discharge, and added a claim for battery against Abdo. (Id.) On August 24, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, alleging that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Global. (R. Doc. 36.) Plaintiff opposed the Motion on September 15, 2012. (R. Doc. 39.)

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction—Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)

"Where a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the party seeking to invoke the power of the court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists." LuvN'Care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 469 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 280 (5th Cir. 1982)). When a court rules on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing, as in this case, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Guidry v. U.S. Tobacco, Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 619, 625 (5th Cir. 1999). "The allegations of the complaint, except insofar as controverted by opposing affidavits, must be taken as true, and all conflicts in the facts must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff[] for purposes of determining whether a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction has been established." Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp., et al., 755 F.2d 1162, 1165 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing DeMelo v. Toche Marine, Inc., 711 F.2d 1260, 1270 (5th Cir. 1983). "In determining whether personal jurisdiction exists, the trial courtis not restricted to a review of the plaintiff's pleadings." Jobe v. ATR Marketing, Inc., 87 F.3d 751, 753 (5th Cir. 1996). The Court may consider matters outside the complaint, including affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, or any combination of the recognized methods of discovery. Id. (citing Colwell Realty Investments v. Triple T. Inns of Arizona, 785 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir. 1986)).

Jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is proper when (1) the defendant is amenable to service of process under the long-arm statute of the forum state; and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dalton v. R&W Marine, Inc., 897 F.2d 1359, 1361 (5th Cir. 1990). In the instant case, "these two inquiries merge into one because Louisiana's long-arm statute permits service of process coterminous with the scope of the due process clause." Asarco, Inc. v. Glenara, Ltd., 912 F.2d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 1990); see also La. R.S. § 13:3201.

"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a corporation, as it does an individual, against being made subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which it has established no meaningful 'contacts, ties, or relations.'" Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware GMBH & Co. KG, 688 F.2d 214, 220 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)). A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant when (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing "minimum contacts" with the forum state; and (2) exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Latshawv. Johnston, 167 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316).

"Minimum contacts" can be established through specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction. Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000). Specific personal jurisdiction exists when a defendant has purposely directed its activities, or availed itself of the privileges of conducting its activities, toward the forum state and the controversy arises out of or is related to those activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 262, 472 (1985). General personal jurisdiction exists when the defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the forum state, regardless of whether such activity is related to the plaintiff's cause of action. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, et al., 466 U.S. 408, 415 (1984).

"If a nonresident defendant has sufficient related or unrelated minimum contacts with the forum, we must then consider whether the 'fairness' prong of the jurisdictional inquiry is satisfied." Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 105 (1987)). The fairness inquiry is determined by analyzing several factors. Asahi, 480 U.S. at 113. These factors are: (1) the burden upon the nonresident defendant; (2) the interests of the forum state; (3) the plaintiff's interest in securing relief; (4) the judicial system's interest in obtaining an efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared interest of the states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213, 216 n.5 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).

II. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted—Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6)

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead enough facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). A claim is "plausible on its face" when the pleaded facts allow the court to "[d]raw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. A court must accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and must "draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir.2009). The Court need not, however, accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50.

To be legally sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a "sheer possibility" that the plaintiff's claims are true. Id. "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action'" will not suffice. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 S. Ct. at 1955). Rather, the complaint must contain enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiffs' claim. Lormand, 565 F.3d at 255-57. If it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, the court must dismiss the claim. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction overGlobal. The Court's findings, as explained more fully infra, are as follows: (1) The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Global; thus all claims against Global are dismissed without prejudice; (2) Plaintiff has stated valid claims for retaliatory discharge and battery; (3) the Motions to Dismiss previously filed by Vista World and Global are now moot.

A. Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint

I. Whether the Court has Personal Jurisdiction over Global

The Court finds Global does not have the requisite minimum contacts with Louisiana to support the exercise of general or specific jurisdiction. Plaintiff's claims against Global are dismissed without prejudice.

a. Vista World's Contacts May Not Be Imputed...