Middleton v. Uhaul Corp.

Docket NumberCV423-126
Decision Date19 December 2023
PartiesDELANO A. MIDDLETON, Plaintiff, v. UHAUL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

The Court has twice previously afforded pro se plaintiff Delano A. Middleton the opportunity to amend his Complaint to provide sufficient information to permit the United States Marshal to serve any defendant. See docs. 18 &amp 30. He has filed a Second Amended Complaint. See doc. 31. The Court, therefore, proceeds to screen the Second Amended Complaint.

The Court must screen any complaint filed IFP, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). “Failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as dismissal for failure to state a claim under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6).” Wilkerson v. H & S Inc., 366 Fed.Appx. 49, 51 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)).

To avoid dismissal, plaintiff's pleadings must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The pleadings cannot rest merely on an “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation,” id. at 678, and the facts offered in support of the claims must rise to a level greater than mere speculation, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Stated otherwise, the complaint must provide a ‘plain statement' possess[ing] enough heft to ‘sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.' Id. at 557 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

As the Court previously summarized, Middleton's allegations concern an altercation he was involved in at a U-Haul truck rental location in Savannah, Georgia. See doc. 10 at 3-4. The Second Amended Complaint similarly alleges that he was involved in a physical altercation with the manager of a U-Haul location in 2021.[1] See doc. 31 at 15-20. He identifies as defendants Edward Joe Shoen, CEO-Owner UHAUL,” Mark Shoen, Founder-Owner UHAUL,” and “UHAUL.” Id. at 2.

First, as the Court has previously explained, see doc. 21 at 3-5, adopted doc. 23, Middleton fails to state any viable claim against the two individual defendants. Although he does not allege that either individual was involved in the events giving rise to his claims, he appears to contend that they are vicariously liable. The Second Amended Complaint contains the following statement, in unedited form:

Three Groups of individuals-Shareholders, Board of Directors, and Officers-make up the corporate structure. (1) Shareholders exert influence through the directors they elect to serve and represent them on the Board, (2) the Board of Directors, in turn, manages the affairs of the corporation at a policy level, and hires and fires (3) the officers who are responsible for the day-to-day decisions of the company.

Doc. 31 at 8. He later alleges that “this Complaint acts and actions were committed against the Plaintiff on a negligent Policy level that was created by the UHAUL Founder Mark Shoen and is enforced by UHAUL CEO-Owner of the UHAUL Corporation ....” Id. at 15. Later still, he alleges, incoherently, [s]ervant to the master, not insuring that their franchisee, licensee and servant to the master is delivering a consistent, sustainable, and replicable quality of products and services to consumers and customer(s).... The UHAUL Founder, and CEO, Franchisor, licensor, HeadQuarters, Corporation, and Master to the servant need the system to grow, prosper, make *profits, and to ensure their designated systems can easily execute to their (Franchisor, licensor, Corporate Headquarters) BRAND STANDARDS.” Id. at 16. Straining the limits of charitable construction, his mishmash of legal terms implies that Middleton asserts that the individual defendants are responsible for the tortious conduct of the Savannah U-Haul manager and employee. No such claim is sufficiently alleged.

As the Supreme Court has explained, “legal conclusions” asserted in a complaint are not entitled to the assumption of truth. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. Even if describing Middleton's hodgepodge of terms as “legal conclusions” gives them too much credit, there is no discernable fact alleged concerning the individual defendants' participation in the allegedly tortious conduct or that they are the alleged tortfeasor's employers. As this Court has explained, [u]nder the doctrine of respondeat superior, a corporation, as an employer, is responsible for the conduct of its employees if the employee acted withing the scope of his employment and on the business of the employer.” Oconee Sporting Sales, Inc. v. Compton, 2010 WL 11610613, at *6 (S.D. Ga. June 23, 2010). The corporation is where “the buck stops.” The Eleventh Circuit has succinctly stated the general principle that “a corporate employer is responsible for the conduct of its employees. [Cit.] Absent exceptional circumstances, however, this liability does not extend to corporate principals or shareholders.” In re Villa, 261 F.3d 1148, 1153 n.6 (11th Cir. 2001) (discussing Florida law).[2] Middleton has, again, failed to state any plausible claim against either of the individual defendants, and they should, therefore, be DISMISSED.

This report and recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.

After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 Fed.Appx. 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).

Despite the fatal defects in Middleton's claims against the individual defendants, he has complied with the Court's instructions to clarify his most recent assertions concerning the proper recipient of service. See doc. 30 at 2-4. Accordingly, a copy of Middleton's Amended Complaints docs. 5, 20-1 & 31, the Court's original Order and Report and Recommendation directing service, doc. 10, and a copy of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT