POLITE v. John, Defendant. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-23No. No. 20-55621

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's dismissal of Polite's Title VII claim and its denial of leave to amend were proper because her complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible discrimination claim, and further amendment would have been futile. The judgment was affirmed.

Rhonda Polite appealed the dismissal of her employment discrimination lawsuit alleging violations of Title VII and state law. The appellate court reviewed whether the district court properly dismissed her complaint for failing to state a legally sufficient claim and whether denying her request to amend the complaint was appropriate.

The court found that Polite's Title VII claim lacked sufficient factual allegations to plausibly support an employment discrimination claim under the relevant legal standards. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow further amendments, since any revised complaint would likely be futile given the same deficiencies.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a Title VII employment discrimination claim
Whether district court properly denied leave to amend without abuse of discretion
Pleading requirements under notice pleading standard

Procedural posture

Polite appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of her Title VII and state law claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Rhonda Nanette Polite appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her action alleging a violation of Title VII and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Dismissal of Polites Title VII claim was correct because Polite failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (a plaintiff fails to show she is entitled to relief if the complaints factual allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct”); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (elements of a Title VII failure-to-hire employment discrimination claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Polites second amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and factors for determining whether to grant leave to amend); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he district courts discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.