Opinion
CV-22-01308-PHX-DLR
10-11-2022
Roxanne M Mosley, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com Incorporated, Defendant.
ORDER
DOUGLAS L. RAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
At issue is Plaintiff Roxanne Mosley's motion to remand (Doc. 7) and Defendant Amazon.com, Incorporated's (“Amazon”) motion to dismiss (Doc. 8). Ms. Mosely's motion will be denied; Amazon's motion will be granted.
I. Motion to Remand
Ms. Mosley asks the Court to remand this case because she would “like [her] case to stay in the superior court house where [she] filed it[.]” (Doc. 7 at 2.) Though Ms. Mosley might prefer that her case be litigated in state court, Amazon exercised its right under federal law to have this case heard in federal court. In cases such as this, which are between citizens of different states and in which more than $75,000 is at issue, federal law gives the defendant a right to have the case heard in a federal, rather than a state, court, provided the defendant removes the case within 30 days after being served with the summons or complaint. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446. That is what Amazon did here. Ms. Mosley's motion to remand is denied.
II. Motion to Dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to seek dismissal of a complaint that is not based on a cognizable legal theory or that lacks sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under an otherwise cognizable legal theory. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim to relief under Rule 12(b)(6), the well-pled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth and therefore are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must plead sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Ms. Mosley is an Amazon employee. She alleges: (1) Amazon is forcing employees to work in another department without air condition, (2) she cannot meet her rate because of unsafe conditions, (3) she is forced to wear safety shoes that cause blisters, and (4) she is working in unclean conditions. Based on these allegations, Ms. Mosley lists six claims: (1) negligence, (2) liability-toxic-other, (3) breach of contract, (4) NCC employee sanction action, (5) injunction against workplace harassment, and (6) civil penalty. She demands a total of $10,000,000 in compensation. (Doc. 1-3.)
The Court will dismiss Ms. Mosley's current complaint because the factual and legal basis for her claims is unclear. To state a negligence claim, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff, proximately causing the plaintiff harm. Wisener v. State of Arizona, 598 P.2d 511, 512 (Ariz. 1979). Ms. Mosley's complaint does not allege any of these elements. To state a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must allege the existence of a contact between her and the defendant, a breach of that contract, and resulting damages. See Thomas v. Montelucia Villas, LLC, 302 P.3d 617, 621 (Ariz. 2013). Ms. Mosley's complaint does not allege any of these elements, either. The Court does not understand what Ms. Mosley is attempting to plead with the label “liability-toxic-other,” and her remaining claims “NCC employee sanction,” “injunction against workplace harassment,” and “civil penalty,” do not appear to be substantive claims to relief-they appear to describe remedies. But at present there is no properly pled substantive claim that would provide for any remedy.
In its motion to dismiss, Amazon makes some educated guesses at what Ms. Mosley is attempting to plead, and then makes meritorious arguments for why such claims cannot proceed. For example, Amazon correctly notes that if Ms. Mosley is complaining about a workplace injury, she must seek redress through Arizona's workers' compensation system rather than through a civil negligence or breach of contract action. See A.R.S. § 23-1022(A). And to the extent Ms. Mosley is complaining of working conditions that run afoul of federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) rules, OSHA does not provide a private cause of action or supersede state workers' compensation laws. See 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4); Glanton v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 297 Fed. App'x. 685, 687 (9th Cir. 2008). To the extent Ms. Mosley's “NCC employer sanction” claim is predicated on A.R.S. § 23-212(A), which prohibits employers from knowingly employing unauthorized aliens, she does not allege that Amazon has done so, and § 23-212(A) does not create a private cause of action; instead, it is enforceable by the state and county attorneys, § 23-212(B)-(D). To the extent Ms. Mosley's “injunction against workplace harassment” claim is predicated on A.R.S. § 12-1810, that statute allows an employer to file a petition for an injunction against someone who harasses the employer or its employees; it does not permit an employee who is not an authorized agent of the employer to file for such a request.
Though Amazon's motion includes correct statements of law, the problem is this: the Court does not know whether these are, in fact, the claims Ms. Mosley intended to bring because her complaint is barebones and lacks adequate factual allegations. For these reasons, instead of imposing the harsh remedy of a dismissal without leave to amend, the Court will allow Ms. Mosley to file a motion for leave to amend in a manner that complies with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1. If Ms. Mosley chooses to do so, she should take care to ensure that her motion complies with Local Rule 15.1, that her proposed amended complaint complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(b), and that her proposed amended complaint clearly and concisely explains what legal claims she is bringing against Amazon and the facts that support those claims.
Ms. Mosley is self-represented. The Court has resources available to help self-represented litigants navigate civil litigation in federal court. The Court's public website is https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/. In the upper right corner of the homepage is an option entitled “For those Proceeding Without an Attorney.” If Ms. Mosley selects that option, she will find links to the Handbook for Self-Represented Litigants, the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure, information on the Federal Court Advice-Only Clinic, among other resources. The Court encourages Ms. Mosley to avail herself of these resources as she prepares a new complaint.
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Ms. Mosley's motion to remand (Doc. 7) is DENIED.
2. Amazon's motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED.
3. By no later than November 8, 2022, Ms. Mosley may file a motion for leave to amend her complaint in a manner that complies with Local Rule 15.1. If Ms. Mosley does not file such a motion within the timeframe specified herein, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this case without further order.