Opinion
C.A. No. 04C-12-027 (JTV).
Submitted: January 13, 2006.
Decided: April 28, 2006.
Upon Consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss a Count of the Complaint DENIED.
William D. Fletcher, Jr., Esq., and Adam C. Gerber, Esq., Schmittinger Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Thomas P. Preston, Esq., and David K. Sheppard, Esq., Blank Rome, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
In consideration of the defendants' motion to dismiss a count of the complaint, the plaintiff's opposition, and the record of the case, it appears that:
1. Belinda Bedran ("plaintiff") has filed a complaint in which she alleges, in Count V, that the defendants, Dover Downs, Inc., et al. ("defendants") discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and other federal statutes. The defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss this count pursuant to Superior Court Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
2. On December 14, 2002, the plaintiff attempted to play an (apparently) unoccupied video lottery machine at Dover Downs Hotel and Casino. Another player, seated at a nearby machine, claimed she was playing both the one she was facing and the one that the plaintiff was focused on. The plaintiff proceeded to play the machine anyway. The plaintiff, an African-American, claims that while she played the machine the other player, a Caucasian, verbally abused her. The situation ultimately developed into a fight in which the plaintiff alleges that the other player physically attacked her, causing injury. The casino employees intervened to break-up the fight and detained the plaintiff for questioning. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants contacted the Dover Police Department for the purpose of having her arrested and criminally charged.
3. When reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, all well pled allegations must be accepted as true. If it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove a set of facts that would entitle her to relief, then the Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be granted. However, such a motion cannot be granted if a plaintiff may recover under any conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint. Vagueness and lack of detail in the pleaded claim are not sufficient grounds alone to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. As long as the complaint gives general notice as to the nature of the claim asserted against the defendant the complaint should not be dismissed.
Browne v. Robb, 583 A.2d 949, 950 (Del. 1990).
Id.
Id. at 949.
Diamond State Tel. Co. v. University of Del., 269 A.2d 52 (Del. 1970).
Id.
4. Section 1981(b) protects the right to make and enforce contracts regardless of race.
5. The defendants contend that the plaintiff has not alleged that her right to make or enforce a contract has been impaired. The defendant claims there is no contractual relationship between the parties upon which a § 1981(b) claim can be based. The defendant also contends that the use of the phrase, "related federal statutes," in Count V, in addition to the specific reference to § 1981(b), fails to put defendant on notice as to what these "related federal statutes" might be.
6. The plaintiff contends that at the time of the confrontation she was actively engaged in contracting with the defendants by playing their slot machines and that her right to contract, or continue to contract, with the defendants under42 U.S.C. § 1981 was, therefore, violated by their actions. The plaintiff cites cases from the District of Delaware that recognize that the transaction of business between a commercial establishment and its patrons constitutes a contract.
See Lewis v. J.C. Penney, 948 F. Supp. 367 (D.Del. 1996); Quartarone v. Kohl's Dept. Store, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19621.
7. The defendants would like this Court to read the statute narrowly. However, the District Court for Delaware has found that Congress wanted the clause to be read broadly as covering "the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship." The federal courts have stated that retail or service transactions are considered contracts.
Id. at 371.
See Lewis v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 948 F. Supp. 367 (D.Del. 1996); Quartarone v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19621 (D. Del. 2005) ; Hall v. Pa. State Police, 570 F.2d 86 (3d Cir. 1978).
8. The District Court in Quartarone v. Kohl's Dept. Store dismissed the plaintiffs' suit because they were not able to show they were denied service or a product by Kohl's. The court stated that in a § 1981 action, business invitees must present evidence that they were prevented from or otherwise hampered in transacting business with an establishment because of race. In the case at bar, the plaintiff has stated in her complaint that she was prohibited from transacting business, i.e. continuing to play the slots machines, with the defendants because they removed her, an African-American, from the slots floor while not detaining the Caucasian player who allegedly started the altercation. These averments are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Quartarone, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19621.
See also Hall 570 F.2d 86.
9. As to the phrase, "related federal statutes," the substance, if any, of the use of this phrase can be clarified through discovery.
10. The motion to dismiss Count V is denied.