CHRISTIAN v. SAFEWAY
1:20-cv-02954
D.D.C.Feb 24, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Patrick Christian sued Safeway in D.D.C., alleging he bought Safeway "Signature Select" products (oatmeal, cereal, cookies, soda, water, candy, etc.) that caused sore throat, flu-like symptoms, and blurred vision; he claimed prolonged use could cause terminal illness or blindness.
- Christian asserted causes of action for malicious adulteration, negligence (failure to prevent/warn), violations of the D.C. Food Code and various other statutes, and implied warranty/authentication claims.
- Safeway moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); Christian opposed.
- The court found Christian’s allegations conclusory and implausible, noting he pleaded no factual basis tying Safeway or its products to his injuries (no dates, no specifics about tampering, no causal facts).
- The court also held that enforcement of the D.C. Food Code’s adulteration provisions is vested in the Mayor and there is no private right of action to pursue those provisions in court.
- The court granted Safeway’s motion and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6) (plausibility) | Christian alleges Safeway adulterated products causing illness | Safeway: allegations are bare, conclusory, and lack factual support | Court: Complaint is implausible and dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Causation for negligence/product liability | Christian: consuming Safeway products caused his injuries | Safeway: no factual link, no dates, no specifics to show proximate cause | Court: Negligence/related claims dismissed for lack of pleaded proximate causation |
| Private enforcement of D.C. Food Code adulteration provisions | Christian: D.C. Food Code violations support adulteration claim | Safeway: enforcement authority belongs to the Mayor; no private right of action | Court: No private right to enforce those provisions; claim cannot proceed |
| Additional statutory claims (federal/state statutes invoked) | Christian cites multiple federal and state statutes to support claims | Safeway: many cited statutes provide no private right, are out-of-jurisdiction, repealed, or irrelevant | Court: Those statutory theories fail for lack of private right/connection and are dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: factual allegations must make claim plausible)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (pro se liberal construction principle)
- Atherton v. D.C. Off. of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672 (pro se complaints must plead more than possibility of misconduct)
- Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (court need not accept legal conclusions or unsupported inferences)
- Briscoe v. United States, 268 F. Supp. 3d 1 (proximate causation requirement in negligence pleading)
- Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., 802 F. Supp. 2d 111 (product-liability/failure-to-warn claims dismissed as vague and conclusory)