PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

XXX DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF XXX

 

 

XXX  INVESTMENT GROUP, INC; and MZ      §

FIELD INVESTMENTS, LLC.,                            §

Plaintiffs,                                                  §

  1. §                 Case No.

XXX, INC.; and XXX       §

MOBIL CORPORATION,                                 §

 

 

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

XXX Investment Group, Inc., and MZ Field Investments, LLC, Plaintiffs, and file this Complaint against XXXXX , Inc., and XXXX Corporation, Defendants, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

 

  1. PARTIES
  1. Plaintiffs MZ Investment Group, Inc. and MZ Field Investments, LLC are companies incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. The address for both companies is 1000 N. West St., Suite# 1281, Wilmington, DE, 19801.
  2. Defendant WEX, Inc. is a provider of payment processing and information management services to the United States commercial and government vehicle fleet industry.
  3. Defendant WAWA, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas stations located XXX.
  4. Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation is an American multinational oil and gas corporation that does business in many U.S. states, including the State of Delaware.
  1. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
  1. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1331.
  2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1391.

 

  1. STATEMENT OF FACTS
  1. On [Insert Date], the Plaintiffs initiated contact with the Defendant with the intention of applying for the Defendants’ gas card, which is facilitated through XXX Corporation. Exhibit 1.
  2. The Plaintiffs, eager to obtain the gas card, saw it as an opportunity to enhance their business operations.
  3. However, to their disappointment, on the very same [Insert Date], an employee of the Defendant XXX conveyed the disheartening news that the Plaintiffs’ gas card application was declined. Exhibit 2.
  4. Naturally curious about the cause behind this setback, the Plaintiffs inquired further to understand the reason why their application could not be completed.
  5. In response to the Plaintiffs’ query, the Defendant XXX, Inc.’s employee vaguely mentioned “verification issues” as the main hurdle in completing the application process. Exhibit 3.
  6. The Plaintiffs applied for the gas card several times, but every time they were denied for “verification” issues. Exhibit 4.
  7. Unfortunately, the Defendant XXX, Inc.’s employee failed to provide specific details about the nature of these verification issues, leaving the Plaintiffs perplexed and unable to take appropriate steps to rectify the situation.
  8. Persistent in their pursuit of clarification, the Plaintiffs continued to engage with the Defendant XXX, Inc.’s employees, urging them to disclose the exact verification issue that needed to be addressed. Plaintiffs sent multiple emails and made calls to resolve the “verification” issues, but they were ignored. Exhibit 5.
  9. Despite the Plaintiffs’ insistence, the Defendant XXX, Inc.’s employee refused to divulge the specific details, further exacerbating the Plaintiffs’ frustration and hindering their ability to rectify the situation.
  10. Throughout this process, the Plaintiffs resorted to multiple emails and a phone call as a means of communication, hoping to find a resolution, but the emails and calls were subsequently ignored. Exhibit 6.
  11. However, their efforts proved futile as all of the Defendant XXX, Inc.’s employees consistently reiterated the same message: the application was declined due to verification issues.
  12. Regrettably, no further elaboration or specifics were provided, leaving the Plaintiffs in a state of uncertainty and dissatisfaction.
  13. The Plaintiffs’ desire to include the Defendants’ gas trade line in their business operations stemmed from the understanding that it would greatly benefit their expansion endeavors.
  14. However, the actions of the Defendants’ employees have effectively prevented the Plaintiffs from capitalizing on this opportunity, making the expansion of their business seemingly impossible.
  15. Adding to the Plaintiffs’ frustrations and suspicions, they harbor a belief that they are being subjected to discrimination by the Defendants due to their status as minority-owned businesses.
  16. There are reviews from other African-Americans on ZZZ, Inc.’s Google page who said that they received the same treatment that Plaintiffs received. Exhibit 7.
  17. This perception of discrimination adds a layer of complexity and unfairness to the situation, intensifying the Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with the handling of their gas card application.

 

  1. CAUSE OF ACTION: Discrimination Contrary to 42 U.S.C. § 1981
  2. Section 1981(a) provides in relevant part:

“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

  1. Ordinarily, to establish a basis for relief under section 1981 a plaintiff must show “(1) that she belongs to a racial minority; (2) an intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the defendant; and (3) discrimination concerning one or more of the activities enumerated in § 1981.” See Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 569 (3d Cir.2002).
  2. The Defendants’ actions indicate discriminatory treatment towards the Plaintiffs, who are minority-owned businesses. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts, including the terms and conditions of the contractual relationship.
  3. The Defendants’ failure to provide specific details about the verification issues and the consistent denial of the Plaintiffs’ gas card application despite their efforts could suggest discriminatory treatment based on the Plaintiffs’ owner’s race or ethnicity.
  4. Section 1981 also protects individuals from being denied equal access to opportunities based on their race. The Plaintiffs sought to enhance their business operations by obtaining the Defendants’ gas card, which they believed would benefit their expansion endeavors.
  5. However, the Defendants’ actions prevented the Plaintiffs from capitalizing on this opportunity, effectively hindering their business growth. This denial of access to opportunities constitutes a violation of Section 1981.
  6. Section 1981 requires parties to contracts to provide reasonable assistance to each other. In this case, the Plaintiffs sought clarification regarding the nature of the verification issues hindering their application process.
  7. However, the Defendants’ employees consistently refused to provide specific details, leaving the Plaintiffs in a state of uncertainty and unable to address the purported issues. This failure to provide reasonable assistance violated the Plaintiffs’ rights under Section 1981.
  8. An individual, including a director, officer, or agent of a corporation, may be liable for injuries suffered by third parties because of his torts, regardless of whether he acted on his own account or on behalf of the corporation. “An officer of a corporation who takes part in the commission of a tort by the corporation is personally liable therefore.” Zubik v. Zubik, 384 F.2d 267, 275-76 (3d Cir.1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 988, 88 S.Ct. 1183, 19 L.Ed.2d 1291 (1968). See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 343 (1957).
  9. In particular, directors, officers, and employees of a corporation may become personally liable when they intentionally cause an infringement of rights protected by Section 1981, regardless of whether the corporation may also be held liable. See Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Association, 517 F.2d 1141, 1146 (4th1975); Faraca v. Clements, 506 F.2d 956, 959 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 422 U.S. 1006, 95 S.Ct. 2627, 45 L.Ed.2d 669 (1975); See also Weaver v. Gross, 605 F.Supp. 210, 212-13 (D.D.Col.1985); Gladden v. Barry, 558 F.Supp. 676, 678 (D.D.Col.1983); Jeter v. Boswell, 554 F.Supp. 946, 951-53 (N.D.W.Va.1983).

 

  1. The Defendants’ employees engaged in discriminatory practices by treating the Plaintiffs less favorably in the gas card application process on the grounds of their minority-owned status. This conduct violates 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
  1. The Defendants’ employees failed to provide the Plaintiffs with reasonable accommodation by withholding essential information regarding the verification issues and refusing to disclose the specific details necessary for the Plaintiffs to rectify the situation.
  2. This failure to accommodate further compounds the discriminatory treatment the Plaintiffs have endured.
  3. As a direct result of the discriminatory actions and the subsequent frustration, uncertainty, and hindered business opportunities caused by Defendants and their employees, the Plaintiffs have suffered significant emotional distress, including but not limited to mental anguish, anxiety, and humiliation.

 

  1. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to GRANT them the following reliefs:

  1. An award of compensatory damages to compensate the Plaintiff for the emotional distress, harm, and damages suffered as a direct result of the Defendant’s discriminatory actions in the sum of $1,000,000.
  2. A court order requiring the Defendant to immediately rectify the discriminatory practices and ensure that appropriate and non-discriminatory procedures are implemented for all future gas card applications.
  3. In consideration of the egregious nature of the Defendant’s discriminatory actions, the Plaintiff requests an award of punitive damages to deter such conduct in the future and to send a clear message that discrimination will not be tolerated.
  4. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing this legal action, as permitted by applicable laws.
  5. Any further relief deemed just and appropriate by the court.

 

 

Dated this ____ day of XXX

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

___________________________________

[Your Full Name]

[Your Address]

[Your State & ZIP Code]

[Your Phone Number]

[Your Email]

 

Appearing in pro per on behalf of XXX

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )