Donnie Yarn and Deshawn Murphy v. Trader Joe's

Yarn v. Trader Joe's · United States District Court for the District of Oregon · December 5, 2025 · No. 3:25-cv-01403-SB

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted Trader Joe’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The court dismissed claims for breach of contract, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and First Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, allowing leave to amend. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded the contract terms and breach, falsity for defamation, conduct sufficiently outrageous for IIED, or state action by Trader Joe’s.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiffs failed to state a breach of contract claim because they did not allege the relevant terms of the purported settlement agreement, how Trader Joe's breached those terms, Yarn's full performance and lack of breach, or facts plausibly showing that Murphy was a third-party beneficiary.
  2. Plaintiffs failed to state a defamation claim because they could not plausibly allege that statements implying they were banned or unwanted on Trader Joe's property were demonstrably false.
  3. Plaintiffs failed to state an IIED claim because the alleged harassment, false allegations, interference with nonprofit activity, and public humiliation did not plausibly constitute an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.
  4. Plaintiffs failed to state a First Amendment claim under § 1983 because they did not plausibly allege that Trader Joe's was a state actor or acted under color of state law.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded a breach of contract claim based on an alleged settlement agreement.
  2. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded a defamation claim based on statements that they were banned or unwanted at Trader Joe's.
  3. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under Oregon law.
  4. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded that Trader Joe's was a state actor or acted under color of state law for purposes of a First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (33)

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57, 570, 572 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Sernas v. Cantrell, 857 F. App'x 400, 401 (9th Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Seals v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 797 F. App'x 327, 327 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
  • Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 33.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…