Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Simmons v. Apple, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 1, 2017

DEANDRE SIMMONS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ROGER W. TITUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On March 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs, Deandre Simmons and Darius Green, IV (collectively Plaintiffs), filed a Complaint in this Court against Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for claims arising out of an incident at one of Apple's stores on June 17, 2016. ECF No. 1 ¶ 17. Plaintiffs allege six counts against Apple, including racial discrimination in violation of (1) the Contracts Clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (2) the Equal Benefits Clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) 42 U.S.C. § 1982; (4) the Deprivation of Rights and Privileges Section of 42 U.S.C. § 1985; (5) State Government Article, § 20-304, Annotated Code of Maryland; and (6) the torts of negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision. ECF No. 1 at 7-10.

         On June 6, 2017, Apple filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. ECF No. 8. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a response, and the deadline to do so has long ago passed. On July 10, 2017, Law Clerk for the undersigned advised the secretary for Plaintiffs' Counsel that no response has been filed, and the Law Clerk also left a message on the voicemail of Plaintiffs' Counsel informing him of the same and inquiring as to the status of the case. To date, Plaintiffs' Counsel has neither returned the Court's call nor filed any response electronically. The Court's patience is not endless. Accordingly, the Court will now address the merits of Apple's Motion, which is unopposed.

         I. Background Facts from the Complaint

         On June 17, 2016, Plaintiffs visited Apple's store at 4860 Bethesda Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland. ECF No. 1 ¶ 17. While waiting in line for assistance, “Plaintiffs were subjected to constant stares and glares by Apple Store employees.” Id. When called to the purchasing counter, Plaintiffs purchased two iPhones for $793.94 each. Id. ¶ 18. They allege that, sometime during their time in the store, “Apple Store employees called 911 to report two suspicious black men at the store and summoned the local police department to the location.” Id. ¶ 10. “Upon opening the store door to exit, the Plaintiffs were accosted by two uniformed Montgomery County Sherriff's Department officers who detained them for almost an hour in front” of the store. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiffs claim that “Apple Store and its employees profiled the Plaintiffs as either shoplifters or as persons committing fraud or other crimes of deceit, causing them to be unlawfully detained by Montgomery County Maryland Sheriff's Department.” Id. ¶ 11. The Plaintiffs were not charged with any criminal offense related to the incident. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of Apple's actions, they “have suffered irreparable loss and injury, including but not limited to deprivation of civil rights protected by the Constitution, economic loss, mental anguish, feelings of distrust, public humiliation and denigration, loss of sleep, and loss of enjoyment of life and daily activity.” Id. ¶ 22.

         II. Motion to Dismiss Legal Standard

         Apple moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to “allege facts sufficient to state any claim as a matter of law.” ECF No. 8 at 1. A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the sufficiency of a complaint. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). “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. “Thus, ‘[i]n reviewing a motion to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). . . [a court] must determine whether it is plausible that the factual allegations in the complaint are enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'” Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia, 579 F.3d 380, 386 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Andrew v. Clark, 561 F.3d 261, 266 (4th Cir. 2009)).

         On a motion to dismiss, courts must accept “all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true, ” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994), and “must construe factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir.1999). Courts, however, “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). Rule 8 “requires a ‘showing, ' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 n.3 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

         III. Analysis

         Apple's Motion appears to be meritorious. For the reasons described below, the Complaint will be dismissed in its entirety.

         A. Count I Alleging a Violation of the Contracts Clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1981

         The Contracts Clause of § 1981 requires that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts. . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). The statute defines the phrase “make and enforce contracts” as “the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b).

         As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that this Count must be dismissed because there is nothing in the Complaint demonstrating how Apple interfered with either the making or performance of a contract. The contracts at issue between Apple and each Plaintiff were made when Apple agreed to sell each Plaintiff an iPhone. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 18. The parties performed on the contracts when Plaintiffs exchanged $793.94 for each iPhone and Apple provided Plaintiffs with said phones. See Id. Accordingly, there was no unlawful interference with Plaintiffs' ability to make and enforce contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and this Count will be dismissed. See, e.g., Baltimore-Clark v. Kinko's Inc., 270 F.Supp.2d 695, 699-700 (D. Md. 2003) (42 U.S.C. § 1981 not violated where plaintiff entered store, purchased services, and left with purchased product-even when plaintiff alleged that the employee's comments humiliated plaintiff and undermined enjoyment of contracting experience).

         B. Count II Alleging a Violation of the Equal Benefits ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.