Boyd Johnson
634 NW 44th Terrace
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
Phone | Fax
Plaintiff in pro per
In the united states district court
For the southern district of florida
Fort lauderdale division
| Boyd johnson,
Plaintiff, vs. publix super markets, inc.; irby, mark r.; phillips, david c. Metz; merrian m; jones sr.; randall t., Defendants |
Case No.: 0:22-CV-60884-KMM
Opposition to publix super market’s reply brief in support of Defendant’s motion to dismiss |
NOW COMES Boyd Johnson, Plaintiff, and files this Opposition to Publix Super Market’s Reply Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and hereby avers as follows:
- Contrary to Defendants’ averments, this lawsuit is properly before this Court. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter.
- 28 U.S. Code 1331 provides as follows: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” In his Complaint, Plaintiff brought a claim of violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is a law of the United States.
- 28 U.S. Code 1332(a) provides in relevant part as follows: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” The matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. Plaintiff requests this Court to award him punitive damages of $100,000, excluding compensatory damages for the causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
- 28 U.S. Code 1343(a) provides in relevant part as follows: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.” This is a suit brought against Defendants for violation of Sections 201-204 of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- 28 U.S. Code 1391(b) provides: “A civil action may be brought in— (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” Plaintiff resides in the State of Florida. To his knowledge, Publix Super Markets, Inc. conducts business within the Southern District of Florida. The causes of action described in Plaintiff’s Complaint took place within the Southern District of Florida. Therefore, venue is proper before this Court.
- Plaintiff has stated facts that give rise to a cause of action for discrimination at a place of public accommodation. Despite Defendant’s false assertion that Publix Super Market is not a place of public accommodation, it falls within the definition outlined in Section 201(b) of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Plaintiff went to Defendant’s premises to purchase an item, just like the other people who were present at that time.
- Plaintiff was denied services at Publix because he was not wearing a face mask. Plaintiff was not the only one who was not wearing a face mask. However, Plaintiff was the only African American among people of Caucasian origin. None of the white people was denied services for not wearing a mask. Staff at Publix continued to attend to white people who were not wearing face masks. Plaintiff is in possession of videos showing white people enjoying services at Publix without wearing face masks.
- At that time, there was no mask mandate compelling people to wear face masks in public places. Staff at Publix discriminatorily enforced their own face masks directive. Plaintiff is certain that if he was white, he would not have been denied services at Publix. The acts and/or omissions of Publix and its staff constitute violation of sections 201-204 of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Defendants ought to pay damages to Plaintiff.
Dated this ____ day of June, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Boyd Johnson,
Plaintiff in pro per
VERIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dated this ____ day of June, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Boyd Johnson,
Plaintiff in pro per