Nachack v. Walmart Inc.
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:24-cv-00027
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Nachack v. Walmart Inc., Judge Van Keulen dismissed the racial-discrimination claim against Walmart without leave to amend.
Ysabelle Bouachanh Nachack’s fifth cause of action, a racial-discrimination claim against Walmart Inc., was dismissed without leave to amend; the opinion does not dispose of the other causes of action.
What happened
In Nachack v. Walmart Inc., Ysabelle Bouachanh Nachack alleged that a Walmart store manager verbally and physically assaulted her and accused her of theft when she tried to return a website purchase. She brought a racial-discrimination claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Walmart again asked the court to dismiss that claim. The court found that Nachack’s amended allegations still did not provide facts connecting the manager’s conduct to her race; her statement that she had previously experienced prejudice based on her Asian race and immigrant status did not establish that this manager acted because of her race.
Judge Susan Van Keulen granted Walmart’s motion and dismissed the racial-discrimination claim without leave to amend. The order also set a remote status conference and required a joint status report concerning the case.
The detailed version
- Nachack v. Walmart Inc. · No. 5:24-cv-00027
- Susan Van Keulen
- Oct. 23, 2024
Background
Self-represented Plaintiff Ysabelle Bouachanh Nachack alleged that she bought a product through Walmart Inc.’s website and later went to a physical Walmart store to return it. She alleged that a store manager verbally and physically assaulted her and accused her of theft. Her case included a racial-discrimination claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, identified as the fifth cause of action.
The court had previously dismissed the racial-discrimination claim because Nachack had not alleged enough facts to support a reasonable inference that the manager intentionally discriminated against her because of her race. The court allowed her to amend, but instructed her to do so only if she could, in good faith, provide facts showing or supporting an inference that her race motivated the manager’s conduct.
Court’s Analysis
After Nachack filed a second amended complaint, Walmart moved again to dismiss the racial-discrimination claim. The court found that the allegations remained substantively the same: Nachack alleged that the manager treated her rudely and disrespectfully, and she assumed that the conduct occurred because of her race.
The second amended complaint added that Nachack had experienced several people who were prejudiced against her because of her Asian race and immigrant status since she immigrated to the United States as a teenager. The court held that this additional allegation did not support a reasonable inference that the Walmart manager discriminated against her because of her race. The court concluded that the complaint still did not bridge the gap between the manager’s conduct and race-based motivation.
Because Nachack had not corrected the pleading deficiency after the court had identified it and provided specific instructions for amendment, the court concluded that further amendment would be futile.
Disposition
Judge Susan Van Keulen granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the racial-discrimination claim without leave to amend. The order did not state that the entire case was dismissed. The parties were ordered to appear for a remote status conference on December 10, 2024, and to file a joint status report by December 3, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.