McDonald v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.
STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN MCDONALD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC.; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
December 4, 2003, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco,
June 18, 2004, Filed
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. D.C. No. CV-02-00311-LRH/PAL. Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding.
COUNSEL: For JOHN MCDONALD, Plaintiff - Appellant: Allen
Lichtenstein, Esq., Las Vegas, NV.
For DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., DEBBIE PEAR, Defendants - Appellees: James Edwards, Esq., Kaaran E. Thomas, Esq., BECKLEY, SINGLETON, JEMISON, COBEAGA & LIST, Daniel F. Polsenberg, Esq., BECKLEY SINGLETON, CHTD., Las Vegas, NV.
JUDGES: Before: O'SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: MEMORANDUM *
Plaintiff-Appellant John McDonald appeals the district court's dismissal of his action brought under 42 U.S.C. @ 1981. Because they are known to the parties, we do not recite the facts.
While a shareholder cannot maintain a civil rights action
for injury suffered only by the corporation, see Erlich v. Glasner, 418 F.2d
226, 228 (9th Cir. 1969), we have acknowledged that "the same
discriminatory conduct can result in both corporate and individual
injuries." Gomez v. Alexian Bros. Hosp., 698 F.2d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir.
1983). In Gomez, we held that a physician of Hispanic origin who practiced
medicine as an employee of a professional corporation had
standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. @ 1981 when the defendant hospital rejected, for allegedly racial reasons, the corporation's contract proposal to operate the hospital's emergency room. Id. at 1021-22. The physician had alleged injuries distinct from that of the corporation, including loss of employment as director of the defendant's emergency room, as well as "humiliation and embarrassment." Id. at 1021.
Though our sister circuits may reach a contrary result, see, e.g., Guides, Ltd. v. Yarmouth Group Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 295 F.3d 1065, 1071-73 (10th Cir. 2002), Gomez squarely controls this case. While McDonald was not formally a party to the contract, he may nonetheless sue under @ 1981 insofar as he seeks recovery for individual injuries separate and distinct from contract damages suffered by JWM Investments, Inc.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Get your 28 day trial now