Gremmels v. Emersons Sport Training and Fitness
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-06104
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Gremmels v. Emersons, Judge Beeler found the self-represented complaint legally deficient and allowed amendment by September 6, 2021.
Chris Gremmels and Emersons Sport Training and Fitness
What happened
Gremmels v. Emersons Sport Training and Fitness concerns a complaint by Chris Gremmels, who represented himself and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. He alleged that events involving sex, drugs, the workplace, the building, and clients had harmed him.
The court said the complaint did not identify a federal law claim, did not establish federal jurisdiction, and did not provide enough facts to state a plausible claim. The court also said diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the defendant was based in California. It required any amended complaint to identify the basis for federal jurisdiction, each claim, and the specific facts and people involved.
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler gave Gremmels until September 6, 2021, to amend the complaint. If he did not amend, the court said it would reassign the case and recommend dismissal; he could also voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Gremmels v. Emersons Sport Training and Fitness · No. 3:21-cv-06104
- Susan Illston
- Aug. 13, 2021
Background
Chris Gremmels sued Emersons Sport Training and Fitness. The opinion says Gremmels represented himself and was proceeding without paying the filing fee. He alleged that he began working at Emersons in 1999 and described incidents involving a fellow trainer, MDMA, narcotics, the building or property, and client contact. He claimed that drug influences ruined his life. The complaint referred generally to a civil right or law protecting employees from sex and drug schemes but did not identify a specific law or claim.
Screening and analysis
Because Gremmels was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court had to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before directing the United States Marshal to serve Emersons. Screening is the court's preliminary review to determine whether the complaint is frivolous, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or states a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that the standard for failure to state a claim parallels the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The court found that it lacked federal-question jurisdiction because the complaint did not allege a violation of federal law. It also said diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Emersons was based in California. Separately, the court found that Gremmels had not plausibly stated a claim because he did not identify a specific claim or provide supporting facts sufficient to give Emersons fair notice of what it allegedly did wrong.
Disposition
The court identified the deficiencies and granted Gremmels leave to amend by September 6, 2021. Any amended complaint had to identify a basis for federal jurisdiction, outline each claim, and state the specific facts and actors related to each claim. The order did not direct service of the original complaint. If Gremmels did not amend, the court said it would reassign the case to a district judge and recommend dismissal. The order also stated that Gremmels could voluntarily dismiss the case by filing a one-page notice, which would operate as a dismissal without prejudice.
Judge
The order was signed by Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.