Harrison v. Vici Properties, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DEJA DASHANTE HARRISON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-2310

VICI PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL. SECTION “R” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is defendants Vici Properties, Inc. (“Vici”) and

Caesars Entertainment, Inc.’s (“Caesars”) motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 Plaintiff Deja

Dashante Harrison opposes the motion.2 For the following reasons, the

Court grants defendants’ motion. The Court also grants plaintiff leave to

amend her complaint to cure the deficiencies.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from the denial of entry into a hotel casino. On October

4, 2021, plaintiff Deja Dashante Harrison, her brother, and her friend

checked into Harrah’s hotel in New Orleans.3 At 5:00 a.m. the next morning,

1 R. Doc. 9.

2 R. Doc. 17.

3 R. Doc. 1-2 ¶ 18.

the group visited the hotel’s casino.4 Before entering the casino gaming area,

a Harrah’s host asked to see plaintiff’s identification.5 After Harrison gave

the host her Louisiana driver’s license and the host attempted to run the

license through the ID scanner, the host told plaintiff that her license “did

not scan,” and that he had to call his manager to “verify her identification.”6

While waiting for the manager, plaintiff gave the host her vaccination card.7

When the manager, “Corey Doe,” arrived, he attempted to rescan

plaintiff’s driver’s license, but the license again did not scan properly.8 At

this point, plaintiff gave Corey her military identification card.9 Plaintiff

asserts that, when Corey looked at her military ID, he “rudely, and

condescendingly” told plaintiff that her ID was “fake,” that it was not her

card, and that “there [was] no way [she] made E-6 that quick.”10 “E-6” refers

the rank listed on plaintiff’s military ID. Corey thus refused to accept her

military ID as a valid form of identification for admission into the casino, and

allegedly “refused to even attempt to scan the [military] ID.”11 Plaintiff

4 Id. ¶ 19.

5 Id. ¶ 20.

6 Id. ¶ 21.

7 Id. ¶ 22.

8 Id. ¶ 23.

9 Id. ¶¶ 23-24.

10 Id. ¶ 24.

11 Id. ¶ 25.

represents that she then “politely informed” Corey that she had recently been

commissioned to a higher rank of second lieutenant.12 In response, Corey

allegedly continued to question the authenticity of plaintiff’s ID.13

Plaintiff asserts that, despite her “continuing [efforts] to verify both her

driver’s license and military ID,” Corey refused to allow her to enter the

casino, and “rudely and dismissively announced he was calling NOPD (New

Orleans Police Department).”14 Plaintiff states that, after Corey represented

that he called the police, she again told him that both her driver’s license and

military ID were authentic, at which point Corey asserted that plaintiff was

trespassing.15 Harrison asserts that she then “patiently waited” in the casino

lobby for two hours for the police, but that they never came.16 During her

wait, plaintiff showed the host and another security guard her army paystub

and a picture of her in uniform, which she represents were shared with

Corey.17 Plaintiff states that, during this two-hour wait, she experienced

“extreme distress,” and was “in fear for her life as she was aware of the many

false arrest, excessive force[,] and police brutality incidents occurring

12 Id. ¶ 27.

13 Id. ¶ 28.

14 Id. ¶ 31.

15 Id. ¶¶ 32-33.

16 Id. ¶ 34.

17 Id. ¶¶ 35-36.

throughout the country against African Americans.”18 After two hours, the

host informed Harrison that he did not believe the police were coming, and

Harrison told Corey that she was leaving and was going to file a police report.

She asserts that Corey “aggressively replied, ‘don’t forget the case number.’”19

On November 15, 2021, plaintiff filed suit in Louisiana state court

against Vici, the entity that owns Harrah’s casino, and Caesars, the company

that operates and manages the hotel and casino in New Orleans.20 Plaintiff

also sued Corey Doe as the “security officer/manager at [Harrah’]s” who she

alleges “bears responsibility in his official capacity as security

officer/manager for administering, monitoring, maintaining[,] and securing

the gaming facility.”21 In her petition for damages, plaintiff alleges that she

was denied entry into Harrah’s “due to her sex (gender), race, and military

status,” and was “falsely accused of acting fraudulently, and subjected to

unjustified detainment, as well as emotional and psychological distress.”22

On December 16, 2021, defendants removed the case to federal court,

18 Id. ¶ 37.

19 Id. ¶¶ 39-40.

20 Id. ¶¶ 5-8.

21 Id.

22 Id. ¶ 4.

contending that the requirements of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332 were met.23

Defendants now move to dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims, asserting that

she has failed to plead facts sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, and

instead relies exclusively on conclusory allegations to support her claims.24

Plaintiff opposes the motion, asserting that she has “clearly established facts

in support of her causes of action,” and requests that, if the Court grants any

part of defendants’ motion, she be given leave to amend her complaint.25 The

Court considers the parties’ arguments below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead

enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. The Court

must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable

23 R. Doc. 1.

24 R. Doc. 9 at 5.

25 R. Doc. 17 at 1-2.

inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d

228, 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2009). But the Court is not bound to accept as true

legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must limit its review to the

contents of the pleadings, including attachments. Brand Coupon Network,

L.L.C. v. Catalina Mktg. Corp., 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 2014). The Court

may also consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss or an

opposition to that motion when the documents are referred to in the

pleadings and are central to a plaintiff’s claims. Id. “In addition to facts

alleged in the pleadings, however, the district court ‘may also consider

matters of which [it] may take judicial notice.’” Hall v. Hodgkins, 305 F.

App’x 224, 227 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Lovelace v. Software Spectrum, Inc.,

78 F.3d 1015, 1017-18 (5th Cir. 1996)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Discrimination Claims

Harrison asserts that she experienced “racial and sex discrimination

while attempting to enter Harrah’s.”26 Specifically, she alleges that she was

denied access to Harrah’s, a public accommodation, in violation of two

26 R. Doc. 1-2 ¶ 4.

Louisiana statutes. The Court evaluates plaintiff’s claims under each statute

below.

1. La. Rev. Stat. § 51:2247

First, Harrison brings a claim for discrimination under the Louisiana

Human Rights Act (“LHRA”).27 See La. Rev. Stat. § 51:2231, et seq. The

statute provides that “it is a discriminatory practice for a person to deny an

individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,

privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public

accommodation, resort, or amusement, . . . on the grounds of . . . race [or] . .

. sex.” La. Rev. Stat. § 51:2247. “Place of public accommodation, resort, or

amusement” is defined as “any place, store, or other establishment, either

licensed or unlicensed, which supplies goods or services to the general public

or which solicits or accepts the patronage or trade of the general public, or

which is supported directly or indirectly by government funds.” La. Rev.

Stat. § 51:2232(9). The statute defines “[d]iscriminatory practice in

connection with public accommodations” as “any direct or indirect act or

practice of exclusion, distinction, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal,

denial, or any other act or practice of differentiation or preference in the

27 Id. ¶¶ 45-55.

treatment of a person or persons because of race . . . [or] sex.” La. Rev. Stat.

§ 51:2232(5).

Harrison contends, and defendants do not dispute, that Harrah’s

casino is a “place[] of public accommodation, resort, or amusement,” and is

therefore forbidden from discriminating on the basis of sex or race.28 The

Court finds that Harrah’s, which includes a casino, hotel, and restaurant, all

of which supply goods and service to the general public and accept patronage

from the general public, qualifies as a public accommodation under the

statute.

The parties dispute whether defendants engaged in a “discriminatory

practice in connection with public accommodations” by denying plaintiff

entry into the casino. Because of the limited case law interpreting the

LHRA’s definition of “discriminatory practice,” courts have looked to federal

antidiscrimination statutes when interpreting the scope of the LHRA. See,

e.g., Cougle v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Am., 429 F. Supp. 3d 208, 216 (E.D.

La. 2019); Smith v. Bd. of Comm. of La. Stadium & Exposition Dist., 385 F.

Supp. 3d 491, 506-08 (E.D. La. 2019), aff’d in part, vacated in part sub nom.

Smith v. France, 850 F. App’x 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (noting

that the “Louisiana Human Rights Act explicitly references federal

28 Id. ¶ 51.

antidiscrimination law in its statement [of purpose] . . . so it is reasonable to

look to Title III for guidance”). Given that the Fifth Circuit has noted that

La. Rev. Stat. § 51:2247 “is substantively similar to Title II of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a),” Semien v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 204

F.3d 1115, 1115 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), the Court finds it appropriate to

look to the Civil Rights Act for guidance. Relevant here, the Court looks to

Title II and its caselaw as a reference for determining whether defendants’

actions constituted a “discriminatory practice.”

Similar to the LHRA, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits

discrimination in public accommodations. Fahim v. Marriot Hotel Servs.,

Inc., 551 F.3d 344, 350 (5th Cir. 2008). Title II claims may be proven by

direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. at 349. Here, there are no direct

allegations of race or sex discrimination. Plaintiff does not allege that Corey,

or any other defendant, made any reference to plaintiff’s race or gender.29

Absent direct evidence, plaintiff instead must allege that there is

circumstantial evidence that would plausibly support a claim of

discrimination. See D’Aquin v. Starwood Hotels & Worldwide Props., Inc.,

No. 15-1963, 2015 WL 5254735, *2-3 (E.D. La. Sept. 8, 2015). The Court

finds that plaintiff has failed to do so here. Plaintiff states that she was

29 R. Doc. 9-1 at 8; R. Doc. 1-2 ¶¶ 25, 31, 33, 40.

denied entry into Harrah’s “despite ample evidence supporting her

identification,” because “based on her appearance alone, the manager did

not believe Harrison could be a lieutenant in the military.”30 Based on this

encounter, Harrison concludes that Corey’s “dismissive treatment towards

her was based on the stereotyped, biased view that a black female, with a

youthful appearance, could not be a ranked Officer in the military.”31

After drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, the

Court does not find that the alleged actions by defendants plausibly suggest

that defendants were motivated by plaintiff’s gender or race. Plaintiff has

not alleged any non-conclusory facts that connect Corey’s statements that

her military ID was “fake” and that “there [was] no way [she] made E-6 that

quick” to plaintiff’s race or gender. Instead, plaintiff’s assertion that the “sole

basis” for Corey’s rejection of her military ID was her “appearance as a young

black woman”32 fails to rise beyond the level of speculation. See Twombly,

550 U.S. at 545 (“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level.”). Additionally, Harrison’s assertion that

discrimination can be inferred from Corey’s refusal to “even attempt” to scan

30 R. Doc. 17 at 6-7.

31 R. Doc. 1-2 ¶ 26.

32 R. Doc. 17 at 8.

her military ID33 likewise fails to allege facts connecting his failure to scan

the ID to her race or gender. Further, plaintiff has not alleged that she was

treated differently from other patrons of Harrah’s who were not members of

the protected classes of which plaintiff is a member. See Thymes v. AT&T

Mobility Servs., LLC, No. 19-90, 2019 WL 1768311, at *11 (W.D. La. Mar. 19,

2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 1757864 (W.D. La.

Apr. 18, 2019) (“The plaintiff did not allege that he was treated differently

from guests at L’Auberge who were not members of a protected class;

consequently, he did not show that L’Auberge discriminated against him on

the basis of his race or his membership in any other protected class.”);

Thomas v. Two Rivers Grocery & Mkt., No. 12-205, 2012 WL 5496423, at *2

(E.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL

5494278 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2012) (“The complaint does not contain any

facts that suggest that the services would be provided in a different manner

to persons outside the protected class.”).

The Fifth Circuit has approved the application of the McDonnell

Douglas burden-shifting framework to Title II claims. Fahim, 551 F.3d at

349 (collecting cases and approving of the Title VII burden-shifting

framework to analyze Title II claims). Under this framework, to set forth a

33 R. Doc. 1-2 ¶ 25.

prima facie case under Title II, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a

member of a protected group; (2) she attempted to enjoy the benefits of the

services of a public accommodation; (3) she was denied those services; and

(4) she was treated less favorably than similarly situated persons outside of

the protected class.34 Id. at 350. Although the Fifth Circuit has applied this

test in the summary-judgment context, it has not applied it at the motion-to-

dismiss stage. But district courts within the circuit have applied the test in

the context of a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Martinez v. Sprouts Farmers

Market, LLC, No. 21-2096, 2021 WL 4034063, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021)

(granting defendant’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff had failed to

establish his prima facie case); Thymes, 2019 WL 1768311, at *11 (same).

But see D’Aquin, 2015 WL 5254735, at *2 (finding that “to hold plaintiffs at

the 12(b)(6) stage to the same standard” that was “enunciated . . . in the

summary judgment phase . . . would be inappropriate”). Here, the Court

finds that if the prima facie test applies at the motion to dismiss stage,

34 Some courts have modified the fourth element of the prima facie test

to ask whether “(a) the services were made available to similarly

situated persons outside the plaintiff’s protected class or (b) the

plaintiff ‘received services in a markedly hostile manner and in a

manner which a reasonable person would find objectively

discriminatory.’” Fahim, 551 F.3d at 350 n.2 (quoting Christian v.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 252 F.3d 862, 872 (6th Cir. 2001)). The Fifth

Circuit has “not decide[d] whether the modified test is more

appropriate for Title II cases.” Id.

plaintiff still fails to allege a plausible discrimination claim because she fails

to assert that a similarly situated person outside of her protected class was

treated differently.

In sum, the Court finds that plaintiff has not set forth any plausible

allegations that defendants have engaged in a “discriminatory practice.”

Without more factual content, her allegations of discrimination are purely

conclusory, and do not rise beyond the level of speculation necessary to

survive a motion to dismiss. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. Accordingly,

under the LHRA and/or Title II jurisprudence, plaintiff’s discrimination

claims under Louisiana Revised Statute § 59:2247 must be dismissed.

2. La. Rev. Stat. § 49:146

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants discriminated against her on the

basis of her race and sex in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute § 49:146.35

Louisiana Revised Statute § 49:146 states that:

(1) In access to public areas, public accommodations, and public

facilities, every person shall be free from discrimination based on

race, religion, or national ancestry and from arbitrary,

capricious, or unreasonable discrimination based on age, sex, or

physical or mental disability.

(2) For purposes of this Section, a public facility is defined as any

publicly or privately owned property in which the general public

35 R. Doc. 1-2 ¶¶ 56-63.

has access as invitees and shall include such facilities open to the

public as hotels, motels, restaurants, cafes, barrooms, and places

or entertainment or recreation . . . .

La. Rev. Stat. § 49:146. “Access means the ability to enter . . . [to] pass to and

from . . . to obtain or make use of.” Robertson v. Burger King, Inc., 848 F.

Supp. 78, 81 (E.D. La. 1994) (quoting Becnel v. City Stores Co., 675 F.2d 731,

734 (5th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted)). In determining whether a policy of

access is in violation, a court must determine whether a “public area,

accommodation or facility has a policy of discrimination that is arbitrary,

capricious or unreasonable.” Albright v. S. Trace Country Club of

Shreveport, Inc., 879 So. 2d 121, 133 (La. 2004) (emphasis added). The party

alleging the violation of section 49:146 bears the burden of establishing by a

preponderance of the evidence that there is a policy that is arbitrary,

capricious, or unreasonable. Id.

Here, Harrah’s meets the statutory definition of a “public

accommodation” or “public facility.” But plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege

any facts suggesting that Harrah’s has a policy or regulation that

discriminates against individuals on the basis of sex or race. Instead,

plaintiff simply alleges that she was “denied access . . . based on her race as

an African American and sex as a female.”36 Moreover, she seeks to hold

36 Id. ¶ 60.

defendants accountable under respondeat superior for the alleged

discriminatory actions of Corey because he took those actions “as he was

performing actions related to his employment at the time of the incident.”37

Notably, plaintiff does not allege that Corey took these actions in compliance

with a company policy. Because plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that

there was a policy of discrimination in place at Harrah’s, her claims under

Louisiana Revised Statute § 49:146 are dismissed. See Bascle v. Parrish, No.

12-1926, 2013 WL 4434911, at *7 (E.D. La. Aug. 14, 2013) (“Because Plaintiffs

fail to meet their burden of even showing that there is a policy in place, much

less one that is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, Plaintiffs claims under

. . . Louisiana Revised Statute Section 49: 1[4]6 are dismissed.”). For these

reasons, the Court thus grants defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

discrimination claims.

B. False Imprisonment

Plaintiff has also asserted a claim of false imprisonment against the

defendants.38 The Louisiana tort of false imprisonment occurs “when one

arrests and restrains another against his will and without statutory

37 Id. ¶ 62.

38 Id. ¶¶ 64-71.

authority.” Kennedy v. Sheriff of E. Baton Rouge, 935 So. 2d 669, 690 (La.

2006). There are two essential elements of a false imprisonment claim: “(1)

detention of a person; and (2) the unlawfulness of such detention.” Id. A

“detention” requires the “total and unlawful restraint of a person’s freedom

of locomotion.” Rawls v. Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent De Paul, Inc.,

491 F.2d 141, 146 (5th Cir. 1974) (citing Crossett v. Campbell, 48 So. 141 (La.

1909) (“Free egress must therefore be impossible.”)). Thus, in order for a

plaintiff to maintain a claim of false imprisonment, there must be “actual

physical restraint” or “circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to

believe he was not free to leave.” Baricuatro v. Indus. Pers. & Mgmt. Servs.,

Inc., No. 11-2777, 2013 WL 3364348, at *2 (E.D. La. July 3, 2013).

Harrison alleges in her complaint that Corey denied her entry into

Harrah’s casino, and that after plaintiff’s “continuing [efforts] to verify both

her driver’s license and military ID,” he accused her of trespassing.39

Harrison further alleges that after Corey announced he was calling the police,

she “patiently waited [for] two hours inside the lobby” at Harrah’s.40 Despite

plaintiff’s assertion that she waited “patiently,” she represents that she

believed she could not leave the casino lobby until the NOPD arrived.41 She

39 R. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 30-33.

40 Id. ¶ 34.

41 Id. ¶ 38.

thus asserts that she was “involuntarily confined” while she waited for the

NOPD because she “feared physical restraint if [she] attempted to leave the

casino because she believed Harrah’s called the police, and believed the

crime [that] she was accused of was serious and feared the repercussions she

could face.”42

Harrison has not plausibly alleged that she was detained. See Vaughn

v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 734 So. 2d 156, 159 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1999) (“The

element of detention is an essential component of the tort of false

imprisonment.”). Notably, Harrison does not allege that she was told that

she could not leave the lobby, nor has she alleged that defendants attempted

to physically detain her in the lobby. See Taylor v. Johnson, 796 So. 2d 11,

13 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001) (“The record is void of any evidence that

[defendants] detained [plaintiff], restricted her movement in the store,

advised her she could not leave, or caused her to be arrested.”). To the

contrary, plaintiff alleges that Corey accused her of “trespassing” by

remaining in the lobby—in other words, that he believed Harrison’s presence

on the property was without permission.

Moreover, plaintiff’s “unfounded belief that [she] was restrained”

while waiting for the NOPD cannot support her claim for false

42 R. Doc. 17 at 8.

imprisonment. Kelly v. West Cash & Carry Building Materials Store, 745

So. 2d 743, 750 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1999). Several Louisiana cases have held that

a plaintiff’s apprehension about a future arrest or prosecution is insufficient

to establish false imprisonment. See, e.g., id. (holding that plaintiff’s fear of

being prosecuted for theft did not establish a false imprisonment claim);

Harrison v. Phillips, 539 So. 2d 911, 914 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1989) (rejecting

plaintiff’s contention that “the fact that the police were summoned” suggests

plaintiff could not leave, noting that such a rationale “would lead to the

somewhat questionable precedent that whenever a complaint is made to the

police the accused could claim false imprisonment”). Thus, the Court finds

that plaintiff has not alleged a plausible claim for false imprisonment, and

thus grants defendants’ motion to dismiss her false-imprisonment claim.

C. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Finally, plaintiff has asserted a claim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress.43 To prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress, plaintiff must prove “(1) that the conduct of [defendants]

was extreme and outrageous; (2) that the emotional distress suffered by

[plaintiff] was severe; and (3) that [defendants] desired to inflict severe

43 R. Doc. 1-2 ¶¶ 72-80.

emotional distress or knew that severe emotional distress would be certain

or substantially certain to result from [its] conduct.” Roberson v. August,

820 So. 2d 620, 629 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002); White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.

2d 1205, 1209 (La. 1991). Conduct is considered “extreme and outrageous”

when it is “so atrocious as to pass the boundaries of decency and to be utterly

intolerable to civilized society.” Roberson, 820 So. 2d at 620 (citing Johnson

v. English, 779 So. 2d 876 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2000)). “[M]ere insults,

indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities” do

not rise to the level of “extreme and outrageous conduct.” White 585 So. 2d

at 1209; see also Singleton v. St. Charles Parish, 833 So. 2d 486, 495 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 2002) (“White v. Monsanto established a high threshold for

evidence of intentional infliction of emotional distress.”).

Nothing in Harrison’s complaint indicates that defendants engaged in

such extreme and outrageous conduct. Harrison alleges that Corey “rudely,

and condescendingly” told her that her military ID was “fake,” and

subsequently “rudely and dismissively” announced that he was calling the

NOPD.44 But such conduct does not rise to the degree of “extreme and

outrageous” that is required for an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-

distress claim. At most, plaintiff’s allegations establish that Corey was rude

44 Id. ¶¶ 25-26, 31.

to plaintiff and insulted her, but these assertions of “insults, indignities, . . .

annoyances, and petty oppressions” are insufficient to establish a claim of

intentional infliction of emotional distress. See White 585 So. 2d at 1209.

Compare Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 So. 2d 1017, 1026 (La. 2000)

(citing Bernard v. Doskocil Companies, 861 F. Supp. 1006 (D. Kan. 1994)

“(holding that a cumulative barrage of racial slurs and physical threats,

including a threat to set the employee afire, may constitute extreme and

outrageous conduct).”).

Moreover, Harrison’s complaint does not indicate that Corey

intended to cause or knew he would cause plaintiff severe emotional distress.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint has failed to state a valid claim for

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants’ motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim is granted.

D. Leave to Amend

Plaintiff requests that, in the event that the Court grants defendants’

motion to dismiss, she be given leave to amend her complaint to allege facts

sufficient to support her claims.45 Defendants oppose this request on the

grounds that any amendment would be futile.46

The Court should “freely give” leave to amend “when justice so

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 405, 417 (5th

Cir. 2013). When deciding whether leave to amend should be given, the

Court considers several factors, including “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory

motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by

virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment.”

Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Court finds that none of

these factors are present here. Specifically, the Court finds that, with

sufficiently pleaded facts, the “circumstances relied upon by . . . plaintiff may

be a proper subject of relief.” Id. The Court therefore dismisses Harrison’s

claims without prejudice and with leave to amend within twenty-one days of

entry of this Order.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to

dismiss, and dismisses plaintiff’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The

45 R. Doc. 17 at 10

46 R. Doc. 20 at 8.

Court GRANTS plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-

one days of this Order.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this__10th_ day of May, 2022.

ernk Vorwer

SARAH S. VANCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22