Warren v. PVH Corp.

Background

Cameron Warren proceeded without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. He invoked federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction. Warren alleged that he was a temporary employee at a Tommy Hilfiger flagship store in Manhattan from October 2018 through March 2019. He alleged that, during a consensual sexual encounter at a manager’s home, the manager took a compromising photograph of him without his consent and later showed it to other employees. Warren alleged that this led to sexual harassment and race discrimination by other managers and employees.

Warren also alleged that PVH Corp., described as Hilfiger’s parent company, closed the store and offered employees payments in exchange for nondisclosure agreements concerning the photograph and its aftermath. He named former employers and coworkers, police, sheriffs, prosecutors, and state court employees as defendants. He alleged that the government officials failed to adequately investigate his criminal complaints and that state court employees failed to issue summonses in related state litigation.

Earlier pleading and amended complaint

In an April 29, 2022 order, the court gave Warren permission to file a second amended complaint to address deficiencies in his first amended pleading. That pleading was 88 pages long, named 35 defendants, and did not contain a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The court rejected Warren’s allegation that the defendants conspired to violate his rights because the complaint did not provide supporting facts, but allowed him to provide facts supporting employment-discrimination claims.

The second amended complaint, including attachments, exceeded 200 pages, named more than 30 defendants, added new claims, and repeated allegations that PVH Corp. closed the store and paid employees to remain silent. The court stated that the complaint was disorganized and did not clarify Warren’s claims. It also stated that the April 29 order had rejected the conspiracy theory without granting permission to replead it, so the court would not consider that theory again.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 that a complaint contain a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. A complaint that is too disorganized or detailed to give defendants fair notice may be dismissed. The court concluded that Warren’s second amended complaint did not provide fair notice of the nature of his claims and did not plead an employment-discrimination claim, or any other claim, in a comprehensible manner.

The court also considered whether to allow another amendment. Although self-represented plaintiffs generally receive an opportunity to correct defective pleadings, the court found that Warren had submitted three pleadings and had not shown that he could provide a short and plain statement supporting a viable claim within the court’s jurisdiction. The court therefore denied further permission to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for the reasons stated in the order and the April 29, 2022 order. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Warren permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The clerk was directed to issue judgment. The court also repeated an earlier warning that further duplicative or frivolous litigation could lead to an order barring Warren from filing new actions without prior permission.