Shortridge v. Discount Tire Store

          ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

          MARCIA S. KRIEGER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#27), Plaintiff's Response (#39), and the Reply (#59).

         I. Jurisdiction

         The Court exercises jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331.

         II. Summary of the Plaintiff's Allegations

         Construing the properly pled facts most favorably to Mr. Shortridge, ^[1] the Amended Complaint alleges as follows.

         Mr. Shortridge, an African American man, was waiting to have new tires installed on a Cadillac Escalade at a Discount Tire Store (the “Store”), when the Store manager, Defendant Edward Masdin, began “harassing” him by questioning either his intention or his ability to pay for the tires. (#17 pp. 3, 8.) Mr. Masdin continued to harass Mr. Shortridge by asking for payment in advance during the entire time Mr. Shortridge was present in the Store. (#17 p. 8.) Mr. Masdin did not treat any other customers who were present in the Store in the same manner. (#17 p. 8.)

         Before Mr. Shortridge offered payment for the tires, Mr. Masdin called the Arvada Police Department (the “APD”) reporting that a customer seemed to be prepared to leave without paying. (#17 p. 8.) Officers of the APD responded to the call. (#17 p. 3.) While the officers were present, Mr. Shortridge offered to pay $150 of the store's $192 invoice for tires and installation. (#17 p. 7.) Mr. Masdin accepted Mr. Shortridge's proffer of partial payment. (#17 p. 7.)

         After Mr. Masdin accepted Mr. Shortridge's proffered payment, Mr. Shortridge was involved in an altercation with the APD officers who had responded to Mr. Masdin's call; that altercation underlies Mr. Shortridge's claims in a companion lawsuit to the suit now before the Court. (#17 p. 6.)

         Arising out of the foregoing, Mr. Shortridge asserts Mr. Masdin's and the Store's liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for interfering with his right to make and enforce contracts on the basis of race, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of his constitutionally protected rights to equal protection of the laws and freedom from unreasonable seizures. The Defendants move to dismiss Mr. Shortridge's claims on the ground that Mr. Shortridge was not deprived of the right to make or enforce contracts and on the additional ground that, because they are not state actors, they are not subject to liability under Section 1983.

         III. Analysis

         A. Standard of Review

          In reviewing the Defendants' Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts all well-pled allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and views those allegations in the light most favorable to Mr. Shortridge. Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards & Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1149 (10th Cir. 2001), quoting Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). The Court limits its consideration to the four corners of the pleading, any documents attached thereto, and any external documents that are referenced in the pleading the accuracy of which is not in dispute. Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1275 (10th Cir. 2001); Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir. 2002); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Howsam, 261 F.3d 956, 961 (10th Cir. 2001).

         A claim is subject to dismissal if it fails to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To make such an assessment, the Court first discards those averments in the Complaint that are merely legal conclusions or “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id. at 678-679. The Court then takes the remaining, well-pled factual contentions, treats them as true, and ascertains whether those facts (coupled, of course, with the law establishing the requisite elements of the claim) support a claim that is “plausible” or whether the claim being asserted is merely “conceivable” or “possible” under the facts alleged. Id. What is required to reach the level of “plausibility” varies from ...