Matz v. Visier Inc

[4] 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 MURIKA K. MATZ, an individual, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01815-JHC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 9 vs. 10 VISIER, INC., a foreign corporation, 11 Defendant. 12 I [13] INTRODUCTION [14] 15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 16 FRCP 12(b)(6). Dkt. # 7. The Court has considered the materials submitted by the parties in 17 support of and in opposition to the motion, the rest of the case file, and the applicable law. [18] Being fully advised, the Court GRANTS the motion. [19] II [20] 21 DISCUSSION [22] When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a [23] court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Livid Holdings [24] Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005). The court must accept all [25] 26 well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Wyler 1 Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 658 , 661 (9th Cir. 1998). “To survive a 2 motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state [3] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 678 [4] (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). [5] 6 Defendant seeks dismissal of these claims: harassment (i.e., hostile work environment) 7 based on disability, harassment based on age, defamation/slander, and tortious interference with 8 business expectancy. Plaintiff concedes that the disability claim should be dismissed. Dkt. # 10 [9] at 1. [10] 1. Harassment Based on Age [11] 12 For the reasons argued by Defendant, the complaint fails to state a claim for age-based [13] hostile work environment. The complaint alleges no such harassment; for example, it does not [14] allege any age-based comment or facts from which to infer that Defendant’s conduct affected [15] the terms or conditions of her employment. Cf. Estevez v. Fac. Club of Univ. of Wash., 129 16 Wash. App. 774, 794 , 120 P.3d 578 (2005). [17] 18 2. Defamation/Slander [19] For the reasons argued by Defendant, the complaint fails to state a claim for defamation. [20] It does not allege any false and defamatory statement. See Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wash. App. 21 22 250, 262, 277 P.3d 9 (2012). 23 3. Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy [24] For the reasons argued by Defendant, the complaint fails to state a claim for tortious [25] interference with business expectancy. It does not allege facts to support the first through fourth [26] 1 || elements of the tort. See Greensun Group, LLC. v. City of Bellevue, 7 Wash. App. 754, 767-68 , 2 || 436 P.3d. 397 (2019). Perhaps most critically, it fails to allege any act of interference. Jd. at 3 768, 71-72. [5] 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES without 8 || prejudice Plaintiff's claims for harassment (1.e., hostile work environment) based on disability, 9 || harassment based on age, defamation/slander, and tortious interference with business 10 expectancy. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave until March 15, 2024, to file an amended 1] complaint that brings again any of the claims dismissed herein. If Plaintiff wishes to assert a [12] cause of action not asserted in her original complaint, then she will need to move for leave to [13] 14 amend her pleading. 15 DATED this 22nd day of February, 2023. oh 4. Chur [17] JOHN H. CHUN 18 United States District Judge [26] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS — Page 3 (CASE 9-92 _ev.912145_TOO)