Razavi v. Target Stores
- Saundra Armstrong
- 4:19-cv-07001
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Razavi v. Target Stores, Judge Demarchi recommended reassigning the case and dismissing it without prejudice after screening the complaint.
Melina Razavi, who represented herself, and Target Stores. The recommendation, if adopted by a district judge, would dismiss Razavi’s action without prejudice.
What happened
Melina Razavi, representing herself, sued Target Stores over alleged refusal to help her retrieve a can of chili and provide an electric cart at a store. She asserted disability-discrimination and negligence claims and requested compensation.
The magistrate judge found that the complaint did not adequately establish federal-court jurisdiction or state a valid claim. The complaint did not identify the parties and jurisdiction clearly, allege citizenship or an amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, or allege facts showing that Target refused assistance because of Razavi’s disability. Razavi also did not file an amended complaint by the deadline previously provided.
The court directed reassignment to a district judge and recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The recommendation was issued by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi, and the parties had 14 days to object.
The detailed version
- Razavi v. Target Stores · No. 4:19-cv-07001
- Saundra Armstrong
- May 4, 2020
Background
Melina Razavi filed the action without a lawyer and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Razavi alleged that, while visiting a Target store in San Jose, California, she asked employees to retrieve a can of chili from a high shelf because she could not reach it. She alleged that employees refused, the can fell and injured her leg when she tried to retrieve it, and Target refused to provide an electric cart. She asserted claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and for negligence, and sought compensation for injuries, damages, pain and suffering, and legal costs.
The court previously gave Razavi until April 27, 2020, to file an amended complaint. She did not file one by that deadline and did not timely request relief from the deadline.
Reassignment
Razavi consented to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge, but Target had not been served and had not consented. Because all parties had not consented, the magistrate judge stated that she could not issue a dispositive order and directed the Clerk to reassign the case to a district judge. The document therefore contains a report and recommendation rather than a final dismissal order.
Jurisdiction and Pleading Defects
The court recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the complaint did not adequately show that the federal court had authority to hear the case. The complaint did not allege the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy, so it did not establish diversity jurisdiction. Although it mentioned the ADA, the court concluded that the allegations did not adequately invoke federal-question jurisdiction.
The court also found that the complaint did not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. It lacked a proper caption, clearly identified parties, separate numbered paragraphs, a short and plain statement of the basis for jurisdiction, and a short and plain statement of the claim.
ADA Claims
The court concluded that Razavi failed to state a claim under either Title II or Title III of the ADA. For Title II, the court explained that the statute applies to public entities and found that the complaint contained no allegations suggesting that Target was a state or local government agent. For Title III, the court explained that the statute covers places of public accommodation and that Razavi alleged Target provided shopping assistance and electric carts to disabled people but refused those accommodations to her. The court nevertheless found that she did not allege facts suggesting that Target or particular employees refused the assistance because of her disability. The court stated that this defect also affected any Title II claim.
Recommendation and Objections
The court directed reassignment to a district judge and recommended that the newly assigned district judge dismiss the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The opinion did not itself enter that recommended dismissal. Any party could object to the report and recommendation within 14 days after being served; the opinion stated that failing to object could waive the right to appeal the district court’s ultimate order.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.