Stephens v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Nicholas Stephens, who was representing himself, filed a personal injury action against United Parcel Service, Inc. in Alameda County Superior Court. United Parcel Service removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. It then moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

After the motion to dismiss was fully briefed, Stephens filed motions for disability accommodations, an evidentiary hearing related to any hearing on the motion to dismiss, and appointment of pro bono counsel.

Motion to Dismiss

The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual information to state a plausible claim and must give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the facts supporting it. Because Stephens was representing himself, the court said it would read his pleadings liberally and would ordinarily allow amendment unless the defects could not be fixed.

Stephens used a state-court form and checked boxes for gross negligence, intentional tort, premises liability, and other professional misconduct. Under the premises-liability section, he alleged an injury at a mail-sorting facility, a planned hate-crime physical assault, surveillance footage, an attached National Labor Relations Board charge and affidavit, and a pending police report. The court found that the complaint did not provide enough information to determine the nature of his claims or the specific acts by United Parcel Service that allegedly violated his rights.

The court therefore granted United Parcel Service’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. It directed Stephens to explain the basis of his legal claims and allege facts supporting them. Because the claims were unclear, the court declined to consider United Parcel Service’s arguments that the claims were barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine or preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

Appointment of Counsel

The court stated that appointment of counsel in a civil case is generally a privilege rather than a right. It may appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances, considering the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer in light of the legal issues’ complexity.

The court concluded that Stephens had not yet shown a likelihood of success or that the issues were sufficiently complex to justify appointed counsel. It denied his motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court denied Stephens’s motions for disability accommodations and an evidentiary hearing as moot because the motion to dismiss was being granted with leave to amend. It stated that those motions could be renewed in connection with a future motion to dismiss, without prejudice.

Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered that any amended complaint was due February 29, 2024. The order disposed of docket numbers 6, 14, 15, and 16.