Gueye v. Wells Fargo Bank

Background

Madiabel Gueye, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Chris Potts, identified as a district manager of a Wells Fargo Bank location. Gueye alleged racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Gueye alleged that he was an African American man who operated an automotive repair and diagnostics business and had been a Wells Fargo business customer since 2007. He described several interactions with Wells Fargo employees, including an August 2022 visit to open an account, an August 2023 attempt to open a business account, and a visit to another branch where a manager allegedly told him to leave.

Procedural History and Standard

Wells Fargo and Potts moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to make a legally sufficient claim. The court treated Gueye’s late opposition as timely, but it did not consider new factual allegations raised only in that opposition. It also did not consider allegations from an earlier complaint that Gueye omitted from the amended complaint.

Section 1981 Claim

Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of private and public contracts. The court held that Gueye’s complaint did not allege enough facts to plausibly show that the defendants acted because of his race.

The complaint attributed one teller’s conduct to the teller’s recognition of Gueye from prior deposit errors, but did not allege facts connecting that conduct to race. The complaint also indicated that later disputes involved allegedly fake corporate paperwork, without alleging that the paperwork was not fake or providing facts supporting an inference that Gueye was rejected because of his race. Although the complaint used terms such as racial profiling, racial slurs, derogatory comments, unequal treatment, and humiliation, the court found those statements conclusory because they were not supported by specific factual allegations. The court therefore granted the motion as to the Section 1981 claim.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

Under California law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct, an intent to cause or reckless disregard of the possibility of causing severe emotional distress, severe or extreme emotional distress, and causation.

The court held that Gueye had not alleged extreme and outrageous conduct. It noted that the complaint did not allege racial slurs or racially motivated insults and did not support a plausible inference of racial discrimination. The complaint also did not allege aggravating circumstances that could make the alleged conduct sufficiently outrageous. The court therefore granted the motion as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend because it concluded that Gueye might be able to plead additional facts sufficient to state claims. The court instructed him to include all relevant supporting facts in any second amended complaint and set April 12, 2024, as the filing deadline. The court stated that if Gueye did not file an amended complaint by that date, the action would be dismissed with prejudice. The order resolved Docket No. 42.