White Coat Waste Project v. Greater Richmond Transit Co.
| Decision Date | 25 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:17cv719 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | WHITE COAT WASTE PROJECT, Plaintiff, v. GREATER RICHMOND TRANSIT COMPANY, Defendant. |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Greater Richmond Transit Company's ("GRTC") Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)1 (the "Motion to Dismiss"). (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff White Coat Waste Project ("White Coat") responded, and GRTC replied. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) Accordingly, the matter is ripe for disposition. The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.2 For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss.
White Coat describes itself as a "bipartisan non-profit taxpayer watchdog organization" that seeks to "unite animal-lovers and liberty-lovers to expose and end wasteful taxpayer-funded animal experiments." (Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1.) In support of this mission, White Coat currently operates a campaign "to end taxpayer funding for dog experiments at the Richmond Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center," (the "Medical Center")."4 (Id. ¶ 8.)
White Coat describes GRTC as "a government entity owned by the City of Richmond and Chesterfield County that provides public transportation in the Richmond area." (Id. ¶ 4.) GRTC "sells advertising opportunities in and on GRTC buses."5 (Id. ¶ 5.) GRTC's Advertising Policy (the "Advertising Policy" or "Policy")6 prohibits various types of advertisements,including "[a]ll political ads." (Id. ¶ 7; Advertising Policy 1, ECF No. 10-1.) The Policy does not define the term "political" or describe criteria that GRTC applies to categorize proposed advertisements as political.7
As part of White Coat's effort to end taxpayer-funded dog experiments at the Medical Center, White Coat proposed an advertisement (the "Advertisement" or the "White Coat Advertisement") to GRTC that displays three dogs behind bars, pressing their snouts through the bars. A heading next to the dogs states "Prisoners * Of * Waste," in large white lettering, followed by, "McGuire VA Medical Center: Stop Taxpayer-Funded Dog Experiments!" (Compl. ¶ 13.) A smaller textbox near the bottom states: "Paid for by White Coat Waste Project WhiteCoatWaste.org." (Id.)
On March 22, 2017, the PUBLIC Foundation8 (the "Public Foundation") contacted GRTC's advertising vendor to place the Advertisement with GRTC, on behalf of White Coat. GRTC ultimately rejected the Advertisement "pursuant to its prohibition on 'political ads.'" (Id. ¶ 14.) White Coat then contacted GRTC's Director of Communications. White Coat explained that the Advertisement constituted a public education advertisement, described White Coat as a bipartisan nonprofit, and asked for clarification about how GRTC defines the term political ad.
According to White Coat, the GRTC Director of Communications responded that "educational issue advertisements could be considered public service advertisements ["PSA"], which GRTC does run 'from local jurisdictional offices.'" (Id. ¶ 15 ().) The Director also stated that if White Coat "partnered, for example, with the City of Richmond's Animal Care and Control, and this is a PSA in conjunction with a local jurisdiction's public education campaign," GRTC would likely run the Advertisement. (Id. (quoting the GRTC Director of Communications).)
White Coat states, "[o]n information and belief, GRTC has rejected numerous issue advertisement[s] based on its 'political ads' prohibition." (Id. ¶ 16.) For example, White Coat alleges that in January 2016, GRTC initially ran an advertisement (the "Chickpea Advertisement") that "advocated keeping fast food restaurants out of hospitals," but ultimately withdrew the Chickpea Advertisement based on the Advertising Policy's prohibition against political ads. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) The Chickpea Advertisement displayed three individuals in lab coats holding up three signs which together read, "EAT MORE CHICKPEAS!" (Id. ¶ 17 (capitalization in original).) In large white lettering it also stated: "Ask your local hospital to go #FastFoodFree!" (Id.) Small text along the bottom stated: "Paid for by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine." (Id. ().) The Complaint describes other advertisements rejected as violating the Advertising Policy's prohibition against political ads, including advertisements related to healthcare in Virginia and pregnancy counseling by a religiously-affiliated organization. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 23.)
White Coat alleges, on the other hand, that GRTC advertised the 2016 Vice Presidential debate held at Longwood College in Farmville, Virginia (the "Vice Presidential Advertisement"). According to White Coat, GRTC claimed the Vice Presidential Advertisementdid not violate its prohibition on all political ads because "all political parties [were] invited to participate, it is neutral and state-approved[. . . and] does not advertise a political message for any perspective." (Id. ¶ 20 ().) White Coat also alleges that GRTC ran advertisements related to AIDS/HIV testing, autism awareness and events, and a university-sponsored multi-cultural festival.
White Coat brings this action against GRTC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,9 asserting violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.10 First, Count I (the "Viewpoint Discrimination Claim") alleges that "GRTC's refusal to run [White Coat's] advertisement amounts to discrimination on the basis of content and/or viewpoint in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." (Id. ¶ 39.) Second, Count II (the "Vagueness Claim") challenges the Advertising Policy as unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the Policy "is not clearly defined such that a person of ordinary intelligence can readily determine whether an advertisement is allowable or prohibited." (Id. ¶ 43.) GRTC filed the Motion to Dismiss, claiming neither count can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.11 White Coat responded and GRTC replied.
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Matkari, 7 F.3d at 1134; see also Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). This principle applies only to factual allegations, however, and "a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). "A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Martin, 980 F.2d at 952 (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[] 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.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (omission in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Id. (citations omitted). Instead, a plaintiff must assert facts that rise above speculation and conceivability to those that "show" a claim that is "plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). "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." Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Therefore, in order for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must "allege factssufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
"If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . , matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56," and "[a]ll parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); see Laughlin v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 149 F.3d 253, 260-61 (4th Cir. 1998); Gay v. Wall, 761 F.2d 175, 177 (4th Cir. 1985). However, "a court may consider official public records, documents central to plaintiff's claim, and documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint [without converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment] so long as the authenticity of these documents is not disputed." Witthohn, 164 F. App'x at 396-97 (citations omitted). "When matters outside the pleadings are presented in a response to a 12(b)(6) motion, a district court has discretion to exclude the additional material." Lawson v. Miles, No. 1:11cv949, 2012 WL 3242349, at *4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2012) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).12
White Coat's Viewpoint Discrimination Claim survives Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny. First, White Coat plausibly alleges that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial