Tillman v. Starbucks Corp.

• Decision Date: 12 November 2021
• Docket Number: 2:21-cv-682-GMB
• Parties: KAYLEIGH TILLMAN, a minor by and through her mother and next friend, Kourtney Tillman, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

KAYLEIGH TILLMAN, a minor by and through her mother and next friend, Kourtney Tillman, Plaintiff,
v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-682-GMB

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division

November 12, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GRAY M. BORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff Kayleigh Tillman, a minor, filed a complaint by and through her mother and next friend, Kourtney Tillman, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama against Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”). Doc. 1-1 at 1-8. Starbucks timely removed the case to the Northern District of Alabama on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. Doc. 15. Before the court is Starbucks' Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 3. For the following reasons, the motion is due to be denied.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must “take the factual allegations in the

1

complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face if “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 complaint “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations need not be detailed, but “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” will not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

At the motion to dismiss stage, a court considers only those factual allegations in the complaint itself. St. George v. Pinellas County, 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that a court's review is “limited to the four corners of the complaint”). When determining whether a plaintiff's complaint survives a motion to dismiss, then, a court considers only the well-pled factual allegations in the complaint and not facts or legal conclusions presented for the first time in briefing. See Morgan v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., 359 F.Supp.3d 1283, 1292 (N.D.Ga. 2019) (“A plaintiff cannot amend the complaint by arguments of counsel made in

2

opposition to a motion to dismiss.”); see also Cunningham v. Fulton County, 2019 WL 162396, at *4 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 10, 2019) (citing In re Androgel Anitrust Litig. (No. II), 687 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1381 (N.D.Ga. 2010), for the proposition that factual allegations “must be properly linked in the complaint, not the response”).

II. FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT

According to the allegations of the complaint, Kayleigh Tillman and her mother were on the outdoor patio at Starbucks in Irondale, Alabama on May 27, 2019, when Tillman attempted to pet a dog.^[1] Doc. 1-1 at 4. In response, the “dog viciously attacked [her] causing puncture wounds, lacerations, injury to her eye(s), swelling and scaring.” Doc. 1-1 at 4.

The complaint alleges that it is Starbucks' ordinary custom and practice to allow dogs on its premises during business hours in areas that are open to the public.^[2]Doc. 1-1 at 4. The complaint also contends that Starbucks “knew of and/or should have known of the dangerous propensity of customarily allowing dog(s) on their premises and failed to take precautions to keep the dog from biting and attacking” Tillman. Doc. 1-1 at 3. The complaint further alleges that Starbucks breached its duty to provide a safe environment by failing to “warn of the dangerous condition

3

present that day, specifically the presence of dog(s) on the premises and/or allowed on the premises.” Doc. 1-1 at 7. Finally, the complaint asserts that Starbucks did not properly supervise or train its employees to be aware when...