Napoles v. Amazon.com Services LLC

No. 2:24-cv-03313-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2025) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · June 10, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-03313-DAD-AC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Amazon.com Services LLC’s motion to dismiss Brandon Napoles’s employment discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims under California law. The court held that the complaint contained virtually no non-conclusory factual allegations and failed to satisfy Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). The court granted Napoles 21 days to file a first amended complaint or a notice of intent not to amend.

Holdings

  1. The complaint failed to state a claim because it alleged virtually no nonconclusory facts supporting any of its claims, including no facts concerning plaintiff's characteristics, the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory conduct, or how defendant violated applicable law.
  2. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint or a notice of intent not to do so within twenty-one days.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when its allegations of employment discrimination, retaliation, and harassment consisted almost entirely of conclusory statements and labels.
  2. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the complaint.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (10)

  • N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983)(followed)
  • Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)(followed)
  • U.S. ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
  • Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983)(followed)
  • Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406, 406 (9th Cir. 1960)(followed)
  • Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)(followed)
  • Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…