United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. BORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant
Altuiiq Education & Training, LLC (“AET”).
Doc. 5. Plaintiff Monisha Wolf filed this lawsuit on January
11, 2019, and amended her complaint on February 6, 2019. She
brings claims against AET denominated as race discrimination,
gender discrimination, and mental suffering and emotional
distress. Doc. 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, the parties have
consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge. Docs. 13 & 14.
careful consideration of the parties' submissions and the
applicable law, for reasons to be discussed below, the Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is due to be GRANTED, but Wolf will be
allowed to re-plead the claims over which this court has
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
court's subject-matter jurisdiction over some of the
claims in this action is questioned in the Motion to Dismiss.
The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue,
and the court finds adequate allegations to support both.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
a black woman who began her employment with AET's
predecessor, Career Education Services. AET took over the
contract and asked Wolf to reapply for her position. AET did
not retain Wolf, and she alleges that Adam Bennett, a white
man, was retained over her.
provided corporate disclosures to establish that it is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Alutiiq, which is a wholly-owned
direct subsidiary of Afognak Native Corporation, which was
formed in 1977 under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
43 U.S.C. § 1601.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
12(b)(1) motion challenges the district court's subject
matter jurisdiction and takes one of two forms: a facial
attack or a factual attack. A facial attack on the complaint
requires the court to assess whether the plaintiff has
alleged a sufficient basis for subject matter jurisdiction,
while a factual attack challenges the existence of subject
matter jurisdiction based on matters outside the pleadings.
Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir.
1990). The burden of proof on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is on
the party asserting jurisdiction. Thomson v.
Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446 (1942).
considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must
“take the factual allegations in the complaint as true
and construe them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d
1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). To survive a motion to dismiss,
a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is
“plausible on its face” if “the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The complaint “requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations need
not be detailed, but “must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level, ” id.,
and “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation[s]” will not suffice. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678.