Barrow v. Living Word Church

• Decision Date: 16 September 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:15-cv-341
• Parties: SAMUEL BARROW, Plaintiff, v. THE LIVING WORD CHURCH, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

SAMUEL BARROW, Plaintiff, v. THE LIVING WORD CHURCH, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-341

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

September 16, 2016

JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL R. MERZ

DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANTS THE LIVING WORD CHURCH, PAT MURRAY AND JACKIE MURRAY'S (COLLECTIVELY THE "LIVING WORD DEFENDANTS") OBJECTIONS (DOC. #68) TO THE MAY 3, 2016, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MOTION TO DISMISS BE DENIED ("INITIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS") (DOC. #57), SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART OBJECTIONS OF THE LIVING WORD DEFENDANTS (DOC. #92) TO THE JULY 25, 2016, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE LIVING WORD DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE LIVING WORD DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS ("SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS") (DOC. #84), RECOMMENDING THAT BOTH THE INITIAL AND RENEWED MOTIONS TO DISMISS BE DENIED; REJECTING SAID INITIAL (DOC. #57) AND SUPPLEMENTAL (DOC. #84) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL R. MERZ; SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS OF THE LIVING WORD DEFENDANTS (DOC. #19), AND SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS OF THE LIVING WORD DEFENDANTS AS TO PLAINTIFF SAMUEL BARROW'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. #71); PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1981 AGAINST THE LIVING WORD DEFENDANTS (COUNT I) IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ENTRY TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITHIN THE STRICTURES OF FED. R. CIV. P. 11; STATE LAW CLAIMS AGAINST THE LIVING WORD DEFENDANTS (COUNTS ll-VI) REMAIN PENDING BEFORE COURT

Plaintiff Samuel Barrow ("Plaintiff"), an African-American male, has filed a Second Amended Complaint against numerous defendants, including The Living Word Church, Pat Murray (a/k/a M. Patrick Murray) ("Pat") and Jackie Murray ("Jackie") (collectively the "Living Word Defendants"). Doc. #63. Plaintiff claims that the Living Word Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by interfering with his contractual and business relationships with third parties, allegedly because of his race. Id., ¶¶ 64-68, PAGEID #478-79.

Pending before the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), are: the Living Word Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint, Doc. #19; Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz's Report and Recommendations that the Living Word Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be Denied ("Initial Report and Recommendations"), Doc. #57; the Living Word Defendants' Objections to the Initial Report and Recommendations, Doc. #68; the Living Word Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Doc. #71; the Magistrate Judge's Supplemental Report and Recommendations on the Living Word Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and Report and Recommendations on the Living Word Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss ("Supplemental Report and Recommendations"), Doc. #84; and the Living Word Defendants' Objections to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations. Doc. #92.

Based upon the reasoning and citations set forth in both the Initial and Supplemental Report and Recommendations, as well as upon a thorough de novo review of the parties' memoranda and the applicable law, this Court REJECTS the Initial and Supplemental Reports and Recommendations. The Court SUSTAINS IN PARTAND OVERRULES IN PART the Living Word Defendants' Objections to said judicial filings, and SUSTAINS IN PART AND OVERRULES IN PART the Living Word Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Renewed Motion to Dismiss.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¹

Plaintiff was a member of The Living Word Church, as was Antoinette Nartker ("Nartker"), whom Plaintiff hired as his typist. Doc. #63, ¶ 17, PAGEID #470. Plaintiff and Nartker's relationship soured, and Plaintiff alleges that Nartker and a Laura Moore ("Moore") "attacked [his] position as volunteer clergy at the Living Word [Church], incorrectly claiming that Mr. Barrow falsely represented his position in the church when working with inmates at local jails." Id., ¶ 31, PAGEID #471. Plaintiff met with the Living Word Defendants and Nartker on December, 19, 2013 (the "Meeting"), regarding Nartker and Moore's allegations. Id., ¶ 32. Plaintiff's attorney accompanied Plaintiff to the Meeting, as Plaintiff believed "that the meeting was originally business oriented." Id., ¶ 34, PAGEID #472. However, after listening to Nartker's accusations, the Living Word Defendants "ultimately indicated that Mr. Barrow was no longer deemed a member in good standing of Living Word." Id., ¶ 35. Plaintiff claims that, in doing so, the Living Word Defendants treated him less favorably than "a white minister [who] had made explicit videos but was appointed as Living Word's multi-media director," id., ¶ 43,PAGEID #473, and that such disparate treatment was consistent with a history of racial discrimination by the Living Word Defendants. Id., ¶¶ 37-44, PAGEID #472-73.

Further, Plaintiff alleges that, after the Meeting, Pat, Jackie and Nartker:

[D]iscussed contacting Mr. Barrow's literary agent to teach Mr. Barrow a lesson. Mrs. Murray stated that she had contacted the agent and others regarding the pending book deals to explain that Mr. Barrow had poor morals and was involved in explicit situations with females and males[, and] that other scandals would be released. These actions were taken based on Mr. Barrow's race.

Doc. #63, ¶ 47, PAGEID #474. Plaintiff claims that, as a result of Pat and Jackie's actions, his agent dropped him as a client, id., ¶ 48, and he lost "several key [business] relationships and deals as a result of these actions." Id., ¶ 62, PAGEID #478; see also id., ¶ 67, PAGEID #478-79 (listing business relationships allegedly lost).

Plaintiff alleges that the Living Word Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count I) by "intentionally interfer[ing] with Mr. Barrow's right to contract based on his race." Doc. #63, ¶ 66, PAGEID #478. Further, Plaintiff has brought related state law claims against the Living Word Defendants of: tortious interference with business relationships (Count II), id., ¶¶ 69-72, PAGEID #479; defamation (Count III), id., ¶¶ 73-77, PAGEID #479-80; invasion of privacy (Count IV), id., ¶¶ 78-81, PAGEID #480-81; intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V), id., ¶¶ 82-86, PAGEID #481; and civil conspiracy (Count VI). Id., ¶¶ 87-90, PAGEID #482.

On November 23, 2015, the Living Word Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Doc. #19. On May 3, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Decision and Order, granting Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and the Initial Report and Recommendations, recommending that the motion to dismiss be denied. Doc. #57. OnMay 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. Doc. #63. On May 27, 2016, the Living Word Defendants filed Objections to the Initial Report and Recommendations, Doc. #68, and the matter was recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for consideration of the arguments raised by the Living Word Defendants. Doc. #69. On June 3, 2016, the Living Word Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss, based on the new allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, again pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Doc. #71. On July 25, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Supplemental Report and Recommendations, recommending that the Living Word Defendants' motions be denied and Plaintiff's claims, as pled in the Second Amended Complaint, be allowed to proceed. Doc. #84. The Living Word Defendants filed Objections to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations on August 11, 2016. Doc. #92. Plaintiff filed responses to the Initial and Supplemental Reports and Recommendations, but made no Objections. Doc. #75, 104.²

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

"The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). "[T]he party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden to prove that [subject matter] jurisdiction [exists]." Global Tech., Inc. v. Yubei (XinXiang) Power Steering Sys. Co., Ltd., 807 F.3d 806, 810 (6th Cir. 2015). If the Court determines thatit lacks jurisdiction over certain claims, then it must dismiss those claims. See Ammex, Inc. v. Cox, 351 F.3d 697, 702 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Riggs v. Island Creek Coal Co., 542 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir. 1976)) ("parties cannot waive the requirement of subject matter jurisdiction.").

As the Living Word Defendants have raised a factual attack on the Court's jurisdiction, "no presumptive truthfulness applies to the factual allegations" in the Second Amended Complaint. Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990). "The district court must therefore weigh the conflicting evidence to arrive at the factual predicate that subject matter jurisdiction exists or does not exist." Id.

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The complaint must provide the defendant with "fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move for dismissal of a complaint on the basis that it "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The moving party "has the burden of showing that the opposing party has failed to adequately state a claim for...