William Gross and 247 Atlas Transportation LLC v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., Palogix Supply Chain Services, Epes Logistics Services, Inc., and Ford Motor Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee grants the defendants’ motions to dismiss William Gross’s amended complaint. The court concludes that the private defendants are not state actors for purposes of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause claims, and that Gross has not adequately pleaded conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) or § 1985(3). The opinion also addresses deficiencies in the alleged tortious-interference claims and declines to resolve the defendants’ shotgun-pleading arguments because dismissal is warranted on other grounds.

Holdings

1. The First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause claims fail because defendants are private parties and the complaint alleges no facts showing that they were state actors.
2. Filing a complaint in federal court is neither attending federal court nor testifying about a matter pending there for purposes of the first clause of § 1985(2); therefore, retaliation for filing the earlier complaint does not state a § 1985(2) claim.
3. A § 1985(3) claim requires a conspiracy motivated by racial or otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus directed at a protected class, and conclusory assertions that defendants discriminated against independent truckers or men are insufficient.
4. Plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because he did not identify the citizenship of every member and sub-member of Palogix, an LLC, and the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
5. Further amendment was denied because the proposed Second Amended Complaint would not cure the pleading and jurisdictional defects.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint stated claims under the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause against private business defendants that were not alleged to be state actors.
2. Whether filing a federal complaint, without attending or testifying in a federal proceeding, could support a claim under the first clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2).
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged the class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus required for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
4. Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action where plaintiff failed to establish the citizenship of all members and sub-members of an LLC defendant.
5. Whether further amendment should be permitted and whether the preliminary-injunction motion should be denied as moot.

Disposition

dismissed