Domino v. Kentucky Fried Chicken
4:19-cv-08449
N.D. Cal.Oct 1, 2020Background
- On Sept. 19, 2019, plaintiff Michael Domino entered a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant in San Francisco; employees allegedly used racial slurs, served a white patron who complained about cold chicken, then refused and physically assaulted Domino, dragging and beating him; police later arrived and Domino was hospitalized.
- Domino filed a pro se complaint in district court alleging racial discrimination, assault, and related claims, seeking $30 million plus injunctive/declaratory relief; he was granted in forma pauperis status.
- The FAC asserts five federal claims (42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VI; Title II; 18 U.S.C. § 351) and several state-law claims (Unruh Act, unlawful business practices, IIED, defamation).
- The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and found multiple federal claims inadequately pled, dismissing them with leave to amend.
- The court allowed limited amendment (deadline Oct. 28, 2020), permitting addition of Samantha 249, Inc. as a defendant but denying joinder of Yum! Brands and Harman-Nguyen as futile; warned Domino to correct pleading deficiencies or face dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1981 (contract rights) | Domino contends racial slurs and disparate treatment show race-based denial of service (contractual benefit). | Defendants point to prior interactions/behavior by Domino and argue race was not the but-for cause. | Dismissed: §1981 requires "but-for" racial causation (Comcast); allegations permit nonracial motives, so claim not plausibly pleaded. |
| § 1983 (state action) | Domino alleges a corporate policy and that employees acted under color of state law. | Defendants are private actors; no factual allegations of joint activity with the State. | Dismissed: conclusory policy/state-action allegations insufficient; no plausible state action alleged. |
| Title VI (federally funded programs) | Domino claims denial of access violates Title VI. | Defendants note no allegation they receive federal financial assistance. | Dismissed: Title VI requires federal funding; pleadings contain no such allegation. |
| Title II (public accommodations) | Domino alleges race-based denial of full and equal enjoyment of restaurant services. | Defendants point to procedural prerequisites/notice requirements under state law and CRA notice provisions. | Not dismissed at screening: plaintiff pled enough to proceed, but must satisfy California/DFEH notice procedures (and federal/state notice rules may affect later litigation). |
| 18 U.S.C. § 351 (criminal statute) | Domino invokes criminal prohibition against assaulting certain federal officials. | Criminal statutes generally do not create private causes of action; §351 protects specific federal actors. | Dismissed: no private right to recover under §351 and plaintiff is not a protected federal official. |
| State-law claims and jurisdiction | Domino asserts Unruh Act, IIED, defamation, UBP claims. | Defendants note federal court only has original jurisdiction over federal claims. | Controlled by supplemental jurisdiction: court will keep state claims now because at least one federal claim survives, but will decline jurisdiction if all federal claims are later dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim; courts need not accept conclusory allegations).
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 8).
- Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of African Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (2020) (§ 1981 requires but-for racial causation).
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) (requirements for state action/joint activity under § 1983).
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) (framework for implying private causes of action under criminal statutes).
- Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (procedural prerequisites like charge-filing may be mandatory but not jurisdictional in some contexts).
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (Title VI and federal funding context).
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (court need not accept conclusory allegations contradicted by complaint).
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (§ 1915 screening uses Rule 12(b)(6) standard).
- Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se plaintiffs should be given leave to amend where amendment might cure defects).