Austin v. ABC Legal

Background

George Jarvis Austin filed the Second Amended Complaint while representing himself. He alleged that he created an online account with ABC Legal Services, Inc., which provides process servers for hire, and later had his account suspended, existing contracts terminated, and access to additional services blocked. He alleged that ABC Legal treated him differently because he is Black and falsely accused him of criminal conduct.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted two causes of action: intentional discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and common-law defamation. Austin also filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. ABC Legal moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, or alternatively sought a more definite statement.

The court also struck several “amended documents” because Austin had not received permission to file supplemental materials. The court resolved the motions without oral argument and denied Austin’s request to schedule argument on his motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Discrimination claims

To state a claim under § 1981, Austin needed to allege that he was a member of a protected racial group, attempted to contract for services, was denied the right to contract for those services, and that the services remained available to similarly situated people outside his protected group. The court found that the Second Amended Complaint adequately alleged the first three requirements but not the fourth. Austin referred to “disgruntled customers” whose accounts allegedly were not terminated, but he did not allege those customers’ protected-class status or provide facts showing that they continued to have the right to obtain ABC Legal’s services.

The court also held that the Unruh Act claim was inadequately pleaded because that law requires allegations of intentional discrimination in public accommodations. The court found that Austin’s statements that he was treated in an inferior or criminal manner, and that the treatment echoed racial epithets, were conclusory rather than factual allegations showing discriminatory intent.

The court dismissed both intentional-discrimination claims.

Defamation claim

Under California law, defamation requires a false, defamatory, and unprivileged statement published to a third person, along with either a natural tendency to injure or special damages. The court explained that a plaintiff generally must identify the allegedly false words, either verbatim or specifically, and state when and where they were published.

The court found that Austin did not identify the alleged false statements that ABC Legal employees supposedly made about him. His allegation that employees repeated a generalized accusation did not provide the actual words. He also did not specify when the statements were made or published. The court dismissed the defamation claim.

Rulings and next steps

Judge Susan Illston granted ABC Legal’s motion to dismiss and denied Austin’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court dismissed the claims with leave to amend because it could not conclude that amendment would be futile. Austin was required to submit an amended complaint no later than June 6, 2022.