Domino

Domino v. Kentucky Fried Chicken

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 1, 20204:19-cv-08449California3,131 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MICHAEL DOMINO, Case No. 19-cv-08449-HSG

Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT

AND GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 40 Defendants.

Plaintiff Michael Domino filed suit against Defendants Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken (“KFC”), asserting claims for, inter alia, racial discrimination and assault. Dkt. No. 6-1 (“FAC”). Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. See Dkt. No. 12. Upon review of the complaint, the Court now determines that Plaintiff fails to state a claim as to several of the federal causes of action asserted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(b)(ii). The Court therefore DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND As relevant to this case, Plaintiff alleges that on September 19, 2019, he entered the KFC and Taco Bell restaurant at 691 Eddy…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.