Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-6876
January 10, 2003.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently pending before this Court are the two Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants, Connie Vandyke ("Vandyke"), Melody Cattell ("Cattell"), Christyn Peoples ("Peoples"), and Thomas Bailey ("Bailey") (or together, the "Individual Defendants"), and the Motion for Default Judgment filed by the pro se Plaintiff Jenicia A. Justice ("Justice"). For the reasons that follow, the two Motions to Dismiss will be granted and the Motion for Default Judgment will be denied.
Justice filed her Complaint on August 22, 2002 in which she alleges that Bed Bath and Beyond ("BBB") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") by failing to hire her as a manager for one of its retail stores. On September 25, 2002, Justice filed an Amended Complaint which consists of only one page bearing a new caption and no allegations or other information. The new caption of the Amended Complaint lists Vandyke, Cattell, Peoples, Bailey and Paul Clymer ("Clymer") as defendants but does not list BBB. Although, the Amended Complaint no longer lists BBB as a Defendant, pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those prepared by counsel. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Therefore, we will assume that Justice intended to incorporate the Amended Complaint into the original Complaint and did not intend for the Amended Complaint to supercede the original Complaint.
Unlike the other four Individual Defendants, Clymer is not an employee of BBB and is not a participant in the current Motions to Dismiss. It is evident from the record that Clymer has not been properly served with the Summons and Complaint or Amended Complaint.
The Individual Defendants admit that they were served with the Summons, but deny receiving a copy of the Complaint with the Summons. The Individual Defendants further claim that, to date, they have not been properly served with the original Complaint or the Amended Complaint. On November 25, 2002, Justice filed a Motion for Default Judgment. The Individual Defendants also deny that they were served with this Motion for Default Judgment. The Individual Defendants allege that their counsel unsuccessfully attempted to contact Justice on two occasions after receiving the Summons.
Also, according to the Return of Service (Dkt. No. 4), contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2), Justice herself served the Defendants with the Summons.
The Individual Defendants and BBB share the same counsel. In the Motions to Dismiss, their counsel states that BBB was also not served with a copy of the Complaint, Amended Complaint or the Motion for Default Judgment.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). A court must determine whether the party making the claim would be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be established in support of his or her claim. Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46); see also Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 759 F.2d 271, 273 (3d Cir. 1985). In considering a Motion to Dismiss, all allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Rocks v. City of Phila., 868 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).
In her Amended Complaint, Justice attempts to allege that the Individual Defendants are liable under Title VII. However, an individual may not be held liable for employment discrimination under Title VII.Sheridan v. E.I. Du Pont De NeMours and Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1077-78 (3d Cir. 1996); Dici v. Comm. v. Pa., 91 F.3d 542, 552 (3d Cir. 1996). Because Justice has failed to state a valid claim against any of the Individual Defendants, they must be dismissed from this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Furthermore, because it appears that none of the Defendants were properly served with the Complaint or Amended Complaint, Justice's Motion for Default Judgment must be denied. As a result, the two remaining Defendants, BBB and Clymer, still must be properly served with the Complaint and Amended Complaint.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2003, upon consideration of the two Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants, Connie Vandyke, Melody Cattell, Christyn Peoples, and Thomas Bailey (Dkt. No.'s 9 and 11), and the Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motions are GRANTED and Connie Vandyke, Melody Cattell, Christyn Peoples, and Thomas Bailey are dismissed from this action with prejudice and their names shall be stricken from the Amended Complaint.
It is hereby further ORDERED that the Motion for Default Judgment filed by the Plaintiff Jenicia A. Justice (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED. The Plaintiff Jenicia A. Justice shall have copies of the Summons, Complaint, and Amended Complaint properly served on the corporate Defendant Bed Bath and Beyond and the individual defendant Paul Clymer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, or the case will be dismissed without prejudice.