Carter v. Shearer
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-CV-10856-TGB |
| Citation | 596 F.Supp.3d 934 |
| Parties | Charvelle CARTER, Plaintiff, v. Troy Police Officer SHEARER, and Troy Police Officer Minton, in their individual capacities, and Louis Vuitton North America, Inc., and Tatiana Vitosevic, Leah Barrager jointly and severally, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Hannah Rachael Fielstra, Kevin S. Ernst, Stephen M. Lovell, Ernst Charara & Lovell, PLC, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.
Ahmad A. Chehab, Michelle P. Crockett, Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, P.L.C., Detroit, MI, for Defendants Louis Vuttion North America, Inc., Leah Barrager, Tatiana Vitosevic.
CONSOLIDATED ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANT TROY POLICE OFFICERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA, INC., AND TATIANA VITOSEVIC'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Charvelle Carter, an African-American woman, was shopping at the Louis Vuitton store located at the Somerset Mall in Troy, Michigan, when she attempted to make a $2,500 purchase. When the transaction was not approved, according to the store clerks, their computer system reported that Ms. Carter's debit1 card was stolen. The Troy Police were quickly summoned, and Ms. Carter was detained for a short period as they tried to sort it out. Eventually, Ms. Carter was allowed to go, but the police retained her debit card for further investigation.
Now the Plaintiff in this case, Ms. Carter, brings this action against Defendants Troy Police Officers Shearer and Minton ("Defendant officers"), Defendant Louis Vuitton North America Inc. ("LVNA"), and Defendants Tatiana Vitosevic and Leah Barrager, LVNA's employees, alleging a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violation against Defendant officers, a false arrest claim in violation of MCL § 600.2907 against all Defendants, and the denial of equal public accommodations in violation of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA"), MCL 37.2101 et seq., and MCL 750.146, against Defendants LVNA, Vitosevic, and Barrager. In separate motions, Defendant officers and Defendants LVNA and Vitosevic move to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF No. 13; ECF No. 23. For the reasons that follow, Defendant officers’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Defendants LVNA and Vitosevic's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
On April 6, 2021, Ms. Carter attempted to make a $2,500 purchase at Defendant LVNA's store at the Somerset Mall in Troy, Michigan. ECF No. 19-1, PageID.162. Defendant LVNA is a high-end luxury fashion house that retails high quality purses, luggage, leather goods, clothing, and other accessories.2 Due to prior issues with Plaintiff's Mastercard debit card, Plaintiff claims she called her bank before attempting to make her purchase but was placed on hold. Id. at PageID.162-63. While on hold, Plaintiff alleges she used her phone to check her bank account status and found that while she had sufficient funds in her account, there was an outstanding overdraft fee. Id. at PageID.163.
After paying the required minimum overdraft fee, Plaintiff alleges that she approached Defendant Vitosevic, a white sales associate of Defendant LVNA, to make her purchase and her debit card was declined. Id. While remaining on hold with her bank, Plaintiff alleges that she paid the balance of the overdraft fee on the assumption that was the reason her card was declined. Id. However, when Plaintiff requested Defendant Vitosevic charge the debit card again, the card was declined a second time. Id. Plaintiff alleges that when the card was again declined, the Defendant's Point-of-Sale ("POS") computer screen only indicated that the card was declined, not stolen.3 Id. at PageID.164.
Plaintiff alleges that after her card was declined, Plaintiff remained in Defendant LVNA's store and sat down while on hold with her bank. Id. During this time, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Vitosevic, or possibly her supervisor Defendant Barrager, called Troy Police and/or Somerset Mall security and falsely reported that Plaintiff attempted to make a purchase with a stolen debit card. Id. Shortly thereafter, a Somerset security guard, entered the store and approached Defendant Vitosevic to discuss the situation, followed by two white Troy Police officers, Defendant Officers Shearer and Minton. Id. at PageID.165.
Plaintiff alleges that upon entering the store, the officers immediately approached her and accused her of using a stolen debit card. Id. Plaintiff contends that during this time she contacted her bank to inform a representative that her debit card had been reported as stolen. Id. Plaintiff claims the bank representative stated she would check into the status of her debit card and placed her on hold. Id.
In her discussions with the Defendant officers, Plaintiff alleges that the debit card belonged to her, had her name on it, and was not stolen. Id. When the Defendant officers demanded identification, Plaintiff complied and produced her current, valid driver's license with her picture on it. Id. At this point, Plaintiff claims she stated that she no longer wished to purchase anything and wanted to leave the store. But the Defendant officers told her she was not free to go. One of the officers "forcefully" grabbed Plaintiff's driver's license out of her hand and demanded to see her debit card, before taking both items to the back of the store. Id. at PageID.166. When the police officer returned, defendant officers told Plaintiff she was being detained because Defendant Vitosevic reported that Plaintiff's debit card came up as stolen in Defendant LVNA's POS computer system. Id.
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff claims that despite her insistence that she was on a call with her bank, the police "forcefully" grabbed her phone from her hand and ended the call. Id. One of the Defendant officers then informed Plaintiff that he had run her debit card and that while the card chip matched the card number, there was "no name attached to the card." Id. at PageID.167. Eventually, the Defendant officers allowed Plaintiff to leave but not before confiscating her debit card and leaving the store with it. Id. at PageID.168. Plaintiff alleges Defendant officers detained her for approximately 43 minutes. Id. The record indicates Plaintiff's card was not released to her until June 21, 2021. ECF No. 21-3, PageID.202.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant officers arrested her without probable cause in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and falsely arrested her in violation of MCL § 600.2907. She also brings an action against Defendants LVNA, Vitosevic, and Barrager for instigating a false arrest in violation of MCL § 600.2907, and discriminating against her in violation of Michigan's ELCRA, MCL 37.2101 et seq., and MCL 750.146. Defendant Officers Shearer and Minton, and Defendants LVNA and Vitosevic, filed separate motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.4
As a preliminary matter, the Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's constitutional claim actionable under § 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendants LVNA, Vitosevic, and Barrager arise out of the same incident and share a common nucleus of operative fact, the Court also will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Plaintiff has asked this Court for leave to amend her Complaint. ECF Nos. 19, 19-1. Rule 15(a) of Fed. R. Civ. P provides that leave to amend complaints shall be freely granted "when justice so requires." Sanders v. Michigan Supreme Court , 329 F.R.D. 174, 176 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (citing to Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 181, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) ). Leave is inappropriate when there is "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the allowance of amendment." Id.
Plaintiff requested leave to amend within 34 days of receiving Defendant officers’ Motion to Dismiss. After careful review, the Court believes in the interest of justice it is appropriate to grant Plaintiff's request to amend the Complaint, particularly with respect to the identification of party defendants Officer Minton and Tatiana Vitosevic; the addition of a new named defendant, Leah Barrager; and the inclusion of the 43-minute detention.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal of a lawsuit where the defendant establishes the plaintiff's "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Jones v. City of Cincinnati , 521 F.3d 555, 562 (6th Cir. 2008). Consideration of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is confined to the pleadings. Id. In evaluating the motion, courts "must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all well-pled factual allegations as true and determine whether the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts consistent with their allegations that would entitle them to relief." League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen , 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Kottmyer v. Maas , 436 F.3d 684, 688 (6th Cir. 2006) ). Though this standard is liberal, it requires a plaintiff to provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" in support of her grounds for entitlement to relief. Albrecht v. Treon , 617 F.3d 890, 893 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal , the plaintiff must also plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. River Houze, LLC
-
Branscumb v. Horizon Bancorp, Inc.
...See, e.g., Thompson v. JP Morgan Chase Custody Servs., Inc., No. 09-127-JBC, 2011 WL 1226496, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 29, 2011). For example, in Carter, an African-American sued a store for discrimination after it reported her to the police for using a stolen debit card simply because her card......