Louie v. Pier 39 Limited Partnership

Background

The plaintiffs brought several related claims arising from their alleged wrongful eviction from a restaurant property on Pier 39. The complaint included one federal discrimination claim and state-law claims. The court said the complaint was fractured and difficult to understand, so it described its understanding of the allegations.

The complaint appeared to allege that defendants discriminated against Angelita Louie, whom the opinion describes as a Filipino woman, by wrongfully evicting her business and failing to provide free rent, COVID relief funds, and training. The plaintiffs relied in part on allegations that, in 2017, San Francisco gave $50,000 to two nonprofit organizations and allowed them to operate a restaurant at the Fillmore Heritage Center without paying rent. The plaintiffs alleged that denying them the same benefits was discriminatory and resulted in the eviction.

Federal Discrimination Claim

The court held that, even accepting the allegations as true, the plaintiffs had not stated a plausible discrimination claim. The fact that San Francisco provided benefits to two nonprofit organizations in 2017 did not suggest that it discriminated against the plaintiffs’ for-profit business by denying free rent or payment assistance. The court found no other alleged facts suggesting that discrimination caused the eviction, and dismissed the discrimination claim.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ opposition included factual allegations not included in the original complaint. It did not consider those additional allegations.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

Because the federal claim, as pleaded, was “patently without merit,” the court stated that it lacked jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Alternatively, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning the state-law claims would not remain in this federal case. The court cited the early stage of the case and concerns about comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy. The opinion states that the state-law claims could be pursued in state court.

Judge Vince Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss. The court expressed skepticism that the plaintiffs could state a federal claim but dismissed the federal claim with leave to amend. The plaintiffs had 14 days to file an amended complaint. If they did not do so, dismissal of the federal claim would be with prejudice, while dismissal would be without prejudice to pursuing the state-law claims in state court. The court also directed counsel to ensure that any amended complaint complied with Rule 11, which requires a reasonable basis for factual and legal assertions filed with the court.