Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screens Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez’s first amended complaint against Harder Mechanical Contractors and several individuals. The court finds that the pleading fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10, does not adequately establish federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, and does not state a cognizable Title VII or ADA claim. The court grants Plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the action.

Holdings

1. The first amended complaint failed to provide a short and plain statement of a plausible claim because it did not clearly state what happened, when it happened, who was involved, or the nature of the alleged discrimination.
2. The complaint failed to comply with Rule 10(a) because individuals identified as defendants in the body of the complaint were not named in the caption; an amended complaint must identify all defendants in the caption and present claims in numbered paragraphs.
3. The amended complaint did not adequately allege federal-question jurisdiction because it asserted only 'discrimination' without identifying a constitutional provision, federal statute, or treaty supplying the basis for relief.
4. The amended complaint did not adequately establish diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to allege the citizenship of the individual defendants and an address alone does not establish their citizenship.
5. The amended complaint failed to state a cognizable Title VII claim because it did not allege discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
6. The amended complaint failed to state a cognizable ADA claim because it did not allege sufficient facts concerning the examination or inquiry, including when it occurred, what was asked or performed, the circumstances prompting it, or whether it was not job-related and consistent with business necessity.
7. Plaintiff was granted one final opportunity to amend his complaint within thirty days or file a notice of voluntary dismissal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the first amended complaint satisfied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10.
2. Whether the amended complaint adequately alleged federal-question or diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether the allegations stated a cognizable claim under Title VII.
4. Whether the allegations stated a cognizable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including the restrictions on medical examinations and inquiries.
5. Whether plaintiff should receive another opportunity to amend.

Disposition

other