Miletak v. Wingz, Inc.

Background

Nick Miletak, representing himself, sued Wingz, Inc. and Turn Technologies, Inc. He alleged that Wingz declined to reactivate his driver profile after Turn refused to conduct a new background check. Miletak alleged that Turn refused because of an earlier civil dispute between Miletak and Turn.

Miletak brought claims against Wingz for wrongful termination and California Labor Code violations. He brought an intentional-interference claim against Turn and claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) against both defendants. Only Turn moved to dismiss, so the court addressed only the claims against Turn.

Legal standard

Turn moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and views them favorably to the plaintiff, but the complaint must contain enough facts to make the claim plausible. The court also applied a less demanding pleading standard because Miletak was representing himself, while noting that self-represented parties must still give defendants notice of what they allegedly did wrong.

Intentional interference

Under California law, a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage requires, among other things, wrongful conduct and causation. Miletak argued that Turn’s refusal to prepare a background report was wrongful because it violated the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The court rejected that argument. It concluded that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Turn’s refusal violated a constitutional provision, statute, regulation, common-law rule, or other legal standard. The court also concluded that those statutes permit a consumer-reporting agency to furnish a report with the consumer’s written instructions but do not require the agency to prepare a report whenever the consumer requests one.

The court separately found that Miletak had not adequately alleged causation. According to the complaint, Wingz could have used another background-screening company but instead chose not to reactivate Miletak’s account. The court concluded that Wingz’s decision, rather than Turn’s refusal to prepare the report, caused the alleged harm.

The court granted Turn’s motion to dismiss the intentional-interference claim with leave to amend.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The court held that Miletak had not adequately alleged the elements of IIED. It concluded that Turn’s refusal to do business with Miletak was not extreme or outrageous conduct under California law. The court also found that Miletak’s allegations of humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, severe anxiety, and emotional distress did not show emotional distress of the required severity.

The court further concluded that Miletak had not adequately alleged causation because Wingz could have sought a different background-screening company but chose not to do so. The court granted Turn’s motion to dismiss the IIED claim and did not allow Miletak to amend it, finding that additional facts could not cure the pleading.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

The court explained that NIED is not an independent tort but derives from negligence. It requires the traditional negligence elements, including duty, breach, causation, and damages, along with serious emotional distress.

Relying on its IIED analysis, the court found that Miletak had not adequately alleged serious emotional distress or proximate causation. The court granted Turn’s motion to dismiss the NIED claim and did not allow Miletak to amend it.

Disposition

The court granted Turn’s motion to dismiss. Miletak may amend his intentional-interference claim against Turn, but may not amend his IIED or NIED claims against Turn. The court set August 2, 2024, as the deadline for an amended complaint. The opinion did not resolve Miletak’s claims against Wingz.