Austin v. Zhang

Background

George Jarvis Austin represented himself in a lawsuit against Bank of America, N.A. (referred to as “BANA”), Green Dot Bank, Airbnb, Linda Zhang, Avinash Jha, and other defendants. Austin alleged that he rented a room in Fremont, California, through Airbnb from April 2020 to August 2020. In July 2020, he was told that Zhang was not the owner of the home and was illegally renting rooms through Airbnb. Zhang tried to evict Austin and call the police, but Austin remained in the room before later moving out.

BANA had previously obtained dismissal of Austin’s claims, with permission for him to amend. After Austin filed a Second Amended Complaint, BANA and Green Dot moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Airbnb moved to compel arbitration. Austin also filed several motions, including motions for judgment as a matter of law, a motion challenging the Clerk’s refusal to enter default, a motion for default judgment, and motions to change hearing dates.

Green Dot’s motion to dismiss

The court found that Austin appeared to base his claims against Green Dot on Green Dot’s alleged failure to refund rent he paid to Airbnb. Austin asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the California Unruh Act, and defamation.

The court granted Green Dot’s motion to dismiss. It held that Austin did not allege facts showing that Green Dot intended to discriminate against him because of race or that the alleged discrimination involved an activity protected by Section 1981. The court also held that Austin did not allege facts showing intentional discrimination or that a protected characteristic motivated the denial of a refund, as required for his Unruh Act claim. Finally, Austin did not allege that Green Dot published a statement about him, so he did not state a defamation claim.

Austin was granted leave to amend his complaint as to Green Dot. The court directed him to file any amended complaint within 14 days of the order.

BANA’s motion to dismiss

The court also granted BANA’s motion to dismiss. Austin appeared to assert claims against BANA under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Unruh Act, and defamation.

The court held that Austin’s Section 1981, Unruh Act, and defamation claims failed for the same reasons as his similar claims against Green Dot. Austin did not allege facts showing intentional discrimination by BANA, discrimination involving an activity protected by Section 1981, intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act, or publication of a harmful statement for purposes of defamation.

The court separately held that Austin did not state a claim under Section 1983 because he alleged no facts showing that BANA acted under color of state law. Section 1983 generally requires a violation of a federal right by someone acting with governmental authority. Because Austin had previously been allowed to amend his claims against BANA and had not fixed the identified problems, the court dismissed the claims against BANA with prejudice.

Airbnb’s motion to compel arbitration

The court granted Airbnb’s motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. It found that Airbnb’s Terms of Service contained an arbitration clause and that Airbnb presented evidence Austin agreed to those terms on two occasions. The court also found that the arbitration agreement covered this dispute and included an agreement for the arbitrator to decide disputes about whether the arbitration agreement applied or could be enforced.

The court therefore granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed Austin’s claims against Airbnb while arbitration proceeds. A stay pauses the court case while the arbitration is resolved.

Austin’s other motions and final dispositions

Because the court compelled arbitration of the claims against Airbnb, it denied as moot Austin’s motion for judgment as a matter of law concerning Airbnb. It likewise denied as moot his motions for judgment as a matter of law concerning BANA and Green Dot because those defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted.

The court denied Austin’s motion challenging the Clerk’s refusal to enter default, finding no error by the Clerk. It also denied Austin’s motion for default judgment because the Clerk had not entered default. The court denied as moot Austin’s motions to change hearing dates because the pending motions were decided without a hearing.

In conclusion, BANA and Green Dot’s motions to dismiss were granted; Austin received leave to amend as to Green Dot within 14 days; the claims against BANA were dismissed with prejudice; Airbnb’s motion to compel arbitration was granted; Austin’s claims against Airbnb were stayed; and Austin’s various motions were denied. Judge Richard Seeborg issued and signed the order.