Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kirsch v. Lei Floor and Window Coverings, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

January 9, 2017

THOMAS P. KIRSCH, Plaintiff,
v.
LEI FLOOR AND WINDOW COVERINGS, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF THOMAS P. KIRSCH'S COMPLAINT AGAINST LEI FLOOR AND WINDOW COVERINGS, INC.

          Alan C. Kay Sr. United States District Judge

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Thomas P. Kirsch's Complaint Against LEI Floor and Window Coverings, Inc. (“Motion to Dismiss”), ECF No. 8.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Thomas P. Kirsch (“Plaintiff”) was hired by Defendant LEI Floor and Window Coverings, Inc. (“LEI” or “Defendant”) in July 2014 as “a Warehouse Personnel.” Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1. On June 24, 2015, Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury, which resulted in his physical disabilities. Id. ¶ 8. The same day he was injured, Plaintiff was informed by John Burkett (“Burkett”), the owner of LEI, that he was terminated from his employment. Id. ¶ 9. Burkett refused to give any reasons for Plaintiff's discharge, despite Plaintiff's request for clarification. Id. ¶ 10.

         Plaintiff was qualified for the position for which he was terminated and was capable of performing his job duties. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. Plaintiff was terminated because of his disability. Id. ¶ 13.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant on June 2, 2016. Plaintiff raises one claim against Defendant for disability discrimination pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, based on his allegations that he was terminated on account of his disability. Compl. ¶¶ 14-20.

         Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on September 15, 2016. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff filed his Opposition on December 19, 2016. ECF No. 11. Defendant filed its Reply on December 26, 2016. ECF No. 13. The Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss on January 9, 2017.

         STANDARD

         I. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “[T]he party asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving its existence.” Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

         Challenges to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction can be facial or factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). “In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. “By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id.

         II. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

         Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the Court to dismiss a complaint that fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) is read in conjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The Court may dismiss a complaint either because it lacks a cognizable legal theory or because it lacks sufficient ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.