Jones v. Mill
| Decision Date | 21 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 7:15-cv-00661-TMP |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT DAVIS CHIP MILL, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Pending before the court are Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by defendants Jamie Brasher (doc. 28), Mike McMillan, and McMillan Trucking (doc. 30) (together "the defendants").1 The motions have been fully briefed, and the parties have consented to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by the undersigned. (Doc. 26).
Before the Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007), a court could dismiss a complaint onlywhere it was clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations," as set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957). The well-established Rule 12(b)(6) standard set forth in Conley was expressly rejected in Twombly when the Supreme Court examined the sufficiency of a plaintiff's complaint and determined:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957). 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 "entitle[ment] 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.
550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The Court went on to criticize Conley, stating that "[t]he 'no set of facts' language has been questioned, criticized, and explained away long enough" by courts and commentators, and "is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562-63. The Supreme Court emphasized, however, that "we do not require heightened factpleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 550 U.S. at 570. The Supreme Court expanded on the Twombly standard when it decided Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), reiterating the Twombly determination that a claim is insufficiently pleaded if it offers only "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. The Court further explained:
Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.... Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not "show[n]"—"that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50 (citation omitted). See also Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009) (). Applying these standards, the court examines the merits of the defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The plaintiffs both are African American residents of Alabama who, as sole proprietors, own and operate separate trucking businesses that regularly did business with the defendants during the relevant time. Plaintiffs Jones and Jackson had been hauling loads of wood chips for Scott Davis Chip Mill ("the Chip Mill") for approximately two years prior to the incidents at issue in the instant case. (Doc. 24, pp. 2-3). Both plaintiffs regularly were hired by the Chip Mill to haul wood chips from the Chip Mill to Beaumont, Texas, as well as other locations. (Id.) The Chip Mill is an incorporated entity in Bibb County, Alabama and defendant Brett Davis ("Davis") is the principal owner of the Chip Mill. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Jamie Brasher ("Brasher") is an agent of the Chip Mill, though not an employee. Rather, he is the employee of defendant McMillan Trucking, which plaintiffs allege is an incorporated entity located in Bibb County, Alabama. McMillan Trucking worked with the Chip Mill to assign loads to various truckers. Defendant Mike McMillan ("McMillan") is the owner of McMillan Trucking. Brasher is the employee of McMillan Trucking responsiblefor assigning loads from the Chip Mill to truckers. Plaintiffs allege that "[t]he arrangement entered into with Defendant Brasher by Defendants McMillan Trucking, owner Mike McMillan, Scott Davis Chip Mill and owner Brett Davis resulted in their not having to hire a dispatcher to distribute loads for transport." (Doc. 35, p. 5).
In July and August of 2014, Brasher began asking for $100 per load in cash from the plaintiffs and other African American drivers. (Doc. 24, p. 3). There are both African American and Caucasian truckers hauling for the Chip Mill, but Caucasian drivers were not asked to pay the $100 kickback. (Id. at 3-4). Brasher would pressure the African-American truckers into paying him when they arrived to get their loads. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff Jones refused to pay, and plaintiff Jackson paid once, but refused to pay thereafter. (Id.) Following Brasher's request for money, the plaintiffs met with Davis, the owner of the Chip Mill, to discuss the kickback. Davis acknowledged the illegality of the kickback and assured the plaintiffs that he would look into it. (Id.) However, Davis said Brasher was too valuable for him to do anything about the issue. (Id.) After complaining to Davis, neither plaintiff was assigned any more hauls from the Chip Mill. (Id.)
In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by depriving them of the equal opportunity to contract due to racial discrimination. The plaintiffs allege that Brasher required the plaintiffs and other African American truckers to pay him a $100 "kickback" to be assigned loads to haul. The plaintiffs assert that this "kickback" fee was not required of Caucasian drivers. The plaintiffs met with Davis regarding Brasher's behavior, and Davis told the plaintiffs that Brasher's behavior was "illegal" and that he would "look into it." Ultimately, however, he told the plaintiffs that Brasher was "too valuable" for him to take any action. Although the plaintiffs had been hauling for the Chip Mill for around two years, they were not given further work after they complained to Davis about Brasher's behavior. The plaintiffs argue that Brasher's actions benefitted all of the defendants, making all of them responsible for it.
A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 requires the plaintiff to allege and make a prima facie showing "(1) he or she is a member of a racial minority; (2) the defendant had intent to discriminate on the basis of race; and (3) the discrimination concerned one or more activities enumerated in the statute." Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Care Systems, Inc., 211 F.3d 1228, 1235 (11th Cir. 2000). The activitiesenumerated in the statute are the rights to "make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal protection of all laws . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 1981. "[T]he term 'make and enforce contracts' includes making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privilege, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship." 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b).
Defendants Brasher, Mike McMillan, and McMillan Trucking first argue that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because it is the plaintiffs' trucking businesses, not the plaintiffs individually, that contract with the Chip Mill and were later deprived of business from the mill. The defendants cite Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, in which the Supreme Court determined that the sole shareholder and president of a corporation did not, individually, have the right to sue for alleged violations of § 1981 against the corporation. 546 U.S. 470, 479-80, 126 S. Ct. 1246, 1252 (2006). Domino's is fundamentally distinguishable from the instant case, however, because the plaintiff in Domino's was operating an incorporated entity, while the plaintiffs in the instant case own and operate unincorporated sole proprietorships. (Doc. 34, p. 7; Doc. 35, pp. 7-8).
Under Alabama law, a sole proprietorship and the owner of that business generally are considered to be the same legal entity. See Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Williams, 945 So. 2d 1030, 1040 (Ala. 2006) ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial