Domino v. Kentucky Fried Chicken

Background

Michael Domino, representing himself, sued Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken. He alleged that, on September 19, 2019, employees at a restaurant at 691 Eddy Street in San Francisco used racial slurs, treated a white customer differently after a complaint about food, refused him service, and beat and dragged him out of the restaurant. He sought $30 million in damages, along with injunctive and declaratory relief.

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of a claim that fails to state a legally sufficient basis for relief when a person is proceeding without paying the filing fee. The court applied the same basic standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint had to include enough factual matter to make a claim plausible.

Federal Claims

The court dismissed the Section 1981 claim. Section 1981 protects equal rights to make and enforce contracts. The court assumed, without deciding, that entering a restaurant to order food could qualify, but held that Domino had not alleged that race was the necessary cause of the denial of service. The complaint also alleged that employees were motivated by prior interactions involving his complaints and his leaving without buying food.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claim. That statute generally requires the defendant to have acted under color of state law, meaning through authority or conduct attributable to a state or local government. The court found no factual support for that requirement and held that an alleged corporate policy was not state law.

The court dismissed the Title VI claim because Domino did not allege that Taco Bell or Kentucky Fried Chicken received federal financial assistance. Title VI bars race discrimination in programs or activities receiving such assistance.

The court concluded that Domino had pleaded enough to state a claim under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, which bars race discrimination in places of public accommodation. The court noted that Domino had not appeared to provide the required notice to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing under the California procedure discussed in the opinion, but treated that requirement as a mandatory claim-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional requirement and allowed the claim to proceed at that stage.

The court dismissed the claim under 18 U.S.C. § 351(e). It held that private citizens generally cannot enforce criminal statutes, and that this statute did not create a private right to seek damages. It also noted that the statute concerns assaults against specified government officials and other listed persons, and that Domino did not allege that he was one of those persons.

State Claims and Amendment Motion

Domino’s remaining claims—for unlawful business practices, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation—arose under state law. The court stated that it would decline supplemental jurisdiction over them if all federal claims were dismissed, but found that Domino had sufficiently pleaded one federal claim. It therefore deferred addressing those state claims until a later motion to dismiss or summary judgment.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Domino was required to file an amended complaint by October 28, 2020, or alternatively pay the filing fee by that date. The court allowed him to add Samantha 249, Inc. as a new party, but denied his requests to add Yum! Brands, Inc. and Harman-Nguyen, Inc. because the court found adding them would be futile. The order states that claims not corrected in a timely amended complaint would be dismissed with prejudice and without further leave to amend. The court also granted in part and denied in part Domino’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.