United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. Navarro, District Judge.
before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 11,
12, 14, 16), filed by Defendants Caesars Entertainment
Corporation (“Caesars”) d/b/a Planet Hollywood
Resort and Casino (“Planet Hollywood”), Ethan
Thomas (“Thomas”), and Shannon Pierce
“Defendants”). Plaintiff Latonia Smith
(“Plaintiff”) filed Responses, (ECF Nos. 50, 55),
and Defendants filed Replies, (ECF Nos. 60, 61,
pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to
Consolidate Cases, (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff filed Responses,
(ECF Nos. 54, 59), and Defendants filed Replies, (ECF Nos.
reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS in part and
DENIES in part, without prejudice,
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and DENIES without
prejudice Defendants' Motion to Consolidate.
November 2017, Caesars and Planet Hollywood suspended and
then terminated Plaintiff's mother, Annecer Peruzar, from
employment as a Guest Room Attendant at their hotels. (First
Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶ 1-3, ECF No.
1-1). Caesars and Planet Hollywood took these actions against
Peruzar for stealing a tip left in a guest's hotel room,
though Plaintiff alleges the termination arose from
Peruzar's African American status and a disdain for
Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 20).
Peruzar's termination, Caesars and Planet Hollywood began
receiving “hateful messages” under the guise of
various aliases “pretending to be the ‘children
of Mrs. Peruzar.'” (Id. ¶ 22).
Plaintiff alleges that, based on the erroneous belief that
these messages came from Plaintiff and Peruzar's other
children, Caesars and Planet Hollywood began spreading false
information about Plaintiff and accusing her of various
crimes. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24).
states that Caesars and Planet Hollywood eventually brought a
lawsuit against Plaintiff in March 2018 to further harass and
retaliate against her. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 81-86).
As an example of this retaliation, Plaintiff alleges that
Caesars and Planet Hollywood sought temporary protective
orders against her based on a “personal,
non-threatening letter” that she sent through Facebook
to the CEO of Caesars concerning her mother's termination
and the false accusations. (Id. ¶¶ 25,
29). This lawsuit against Plaintiff resulted in a
confidential settlement; but, according to Plaintiff,
Defendants continued to assert false allegations against her.
(Id. ¶ 33).
also alleges that when Peruzar filed her own lawsuit against
Caesars and Planet Hollywood based on her termination,
Shannon Pierce and Ethan Thomas (as attorneys for Caesars and
Planet Hollywood) engaged in retaliatory actions against
Plaintiff during and after legal proceedings. She claims that
these attorneys taunted her, made derogatory remarks and
threats, and disclosed confidential information about her and
her mother. (Id. ¶¶ 34, 38-39, 40- 42).
on Defendants' alleged actions, Plaintiff filed a
Complaint against them in the District Court for Clark
County, Nevada. Plaintiff alleges that even after she filed
her lawsuit, Caesars took further action against her by
banning her from “all current and future
properties” due to her race. (Id. ¶¶
94-98). Accordingly, Plaintiff currently alleges six claims
against Defendants through her First Amended Complaint: (1)
intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) defamation;
(3) slander; (4) abuse of process; (5) malicious prosecution;
and (6) race-discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
2000a and Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”)
651.070, 651.080, and 651.090. (Id. ¶¶
60-102). Defendants removed the case to this Court on May 20,
2019, based on federal-question jurisdiction due to
Plaintiff's federal race-discrimination claim under 42
U.S.C. § 2000a. (Pet. Removal, ECF No. 1). After
removal, Defendants filed their instant Motions to Dismiss,
(ECF Nos. 11, 12, 14, 16).
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) mandates that a court
dismiss a cause of action that fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. See N. Star Int'l v.
Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir.
1983). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is
appropriate only when the complaint does not give the
defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the
grounds on which it rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering
whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the
Court will take all material allegations as true and construe
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See NL
Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir.
Court, however, is not required to accept as true allegations
that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact,
or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden State
Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). A formulaic
recitation of a cause of action with conclusory allegations
is not sufficient; a plaintiff must plead facts showing that
a violation is plausible, not just possible.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
may also dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a). Hearns v. San Bernardino Police
Dept., 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008). Rule 8(a)(2)
requires that a plaintiff's complaint contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
“Prolix, confusing complaints” should be