Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a tenant's amended complaint against his former landlord and its employee. The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim for race or national-origin discrimination and upheld the district court's decision declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the amended complaint stated a claim for race- or national-origin discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Whether the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims after dismissing the federal claim.
Holdings
- The amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it alleged insufficient facts to support an inference that Amiri was the victim of unlawful discrimination based on race or national origin or other unlawful conduct.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims after dismissing the federal claim.
Factual background
Amiri sued his former landlord and its employee, alleging discrimination based on race and national origin under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court concluded that the amended complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support an inference of unlawful discrimination or other unlawful conduct. After dismissal of the federal claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed Amiri's amended complaint against his former landlord and its employee, including federal discrimination claims and remaining claims over which it declined supplemental jurisdiction. Amiri appealed, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's August 19, 2010 order.