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.

Collymore v. Tannery

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

January 8, 2019

STEVEN D. COLLYMORE, Plaintiff,
v.
TANNERY and HICHAM ALI HASSAN a/k/a SAM HASSAN, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          LEO T. SOROKIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         For the reasons stated below, defendant Tannery's motion to dismiss the original complaint is DENIED as MOOT, and defendant Tannery's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is DENIED.

         I. Background

         On August 2, 2018, pro se plaintiff Steven D. Collymore (“Collymore”) filed a verified complaint against defendant Tannery and unnamed others alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of race when he was approached by the store manager, asked to leave and told “we don't want your kind in here.” Compl., pp. 4, 6, ECF No. 1.

         On August 20, 2018, Collymore moved to amend his complaint, apparently to include the identity of the store manager. ECF No. 9. On September 6, 2018, Collymore's motion was allowed, and Collymore was ordered to file his amended complaint. On September 13, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The single-page amended complaint, signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, identifies the defendants in the caption and alleges in full:

On or around the week of December 10th 2017 I, Steven D. Collymore walked into the Tannery with hopes of purchasing a “Gucci” belt for a birthday gift for my then boyfriend.
As I was browsing through the belt section located on the first floor of the Tannery near the cash register I immediately was made most uncomfortable and store employees made it abundantly clear that I was being closely watched.
I ignored this blatant racial profiling as it is customary behavior throughout the majority of the establishments in and or around the Boylston, Newbury St. area especially if your African American.
Before I could make my selection and “purchase” my belt I was approached now by the store manager and was asked to leave but not before the store manager stated to me, “we don't want your kind here”

Amended Compl., ECF No. 18 (syntax and punctuation in original).

         On September 8, 2018, Tannery appeared in this action and moved to dismiss the original complaint. ECF Nos. 13, 14 and 15. Collymore filed his response to the motion to dismiss on October 4, 2018. ECF No. 25. On October 5, 2018, Tannery filed an almost identical motion to dismiss the amended complaint. ECF No. 26. Collymore did not respond to the second motion to dismiss.

         II. Discussion

         A. The Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint is Moot.

         Tannery's motion to dismiss the original complaint (ECF No. 14) was no longer operative upon Collymore's filing of the amended complaint, as ordered by the Court. Accordingly, Tannery's motion to dismiss the original complaint (ECF No. 14) is DENIED as MOOT. To the extent it were not moot, it would be denied for substantially the ...


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.