Bergeron v. Accra Care, Inc.

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota February 14, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Dominique Elise Bergeron, Case No. 23-cv-3281 (SRN/DJF)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Accra Care, Inc.,

Defendant.

Dominique Elise Bergeron, 3045 Bloomington Ave #7173, Minneapolis, MN 55407,
Pro Se.

Alexandra Tyre Carthew and Emily A. McNee, Littler Mendelson, PC, 1300 IDS Center,
80 S. 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendant.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Accra Care, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
[Doc. No. 5]. Based on a review of the files, submissions, and proceedings herein, and for
the reasons below, the Court grants the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2023, Dominique Bergeron filed a pro se complaint against Defendant
Accra Care, Inc. in Anoka County District Court, in the Tenth Judicial District of the State
of Minnesota. (Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1] at 1, 9.) The Complaint, in total, reads as
follows:
CASE 0:23-cv-03281-SRN-DJF* + Filed 10/25/23 Page 5 of 7 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
76/2023 3:10 PM

Civil

Dominique Elise Bergeron
Vs
Accra Care The Agency

A.
Ldiseriminated in an housing process- Federal Fair Housing Act, 2) work discrimination, 3) Child
endangerment, 4) Liability and or negligence causing wrongful death of a 3yr old child, 5) breach of
contract 6) Child endangerment 7) Violating Falr Labor Standards Act Dominique signed up for a job that
both implied and was promised safety, correct wages, nonadiscrimination within the work place and or
anything surrounding the or pertaining to the job and or her information,
B. False wage reporting, Conflict of interest

Plaintiff request a relief sum 5 million dollars.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this is true and correct to ones knowledge

Dominique Elise Bergeron 07/16/7023
3045 Bloomington Ave #7173
Mols,MN 55407
[email protected]

Ud. at 9.) On October 25, 2023, counsel for the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal
to federal court. (/d. at 1-4.) Then, on November 1, 2023, counsel for the Defendant moved
this Court to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5)
(insufficiency of service of process) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted). (Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 5].) The Defendant requested that, in the
alternative, the Court order Ms. Bergeron to provide a more definite statement of her
claims. (Id.)

On November 16, 2023, Ms. Bergeron filed a notice document captioned “Rule 63.”
(Rule 63 Notice [Doc. No. 13].) This document includes complaints against a state court
judge overseeing another of Ms. Bergeron’s legal matters. It does not appear to contain any
reference to the allegations in Ms. Bergeron’s complaint or any response to the Defendant’s
motion to dismiss. (See id.)

On November 22, 2023, Ms. Bergeron filed a motion to amend her complaint,
wherein she requested that her original complaint be amended to include the Defendant’s
proper business name (“Accra Care, Inc.”) and to remove the mistaken name (“Accra Care,
The Agency”) from the complaint. (Mot. to Amend [Doc. No. 15].) On November 27,
2023, Ms. Bergeron filed a document captioned “Complaint/Joinder”, which does not

identify the Defendant in this case as a defendant or bear any reference to Ms. Bergeron’s
original complaint. (Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 17].)
On November 27, 2023, Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster granted Ms. Bergeron’s
motion to amend her complaint. (Nov. 27, 2023 Order [Doc. No. 18].) Magistrate Judge
Foster ordered Ms. Bergeron to file an amended complaint on or before December 11,

2023. (Id.) In the order, Magistrate Judge Foster made clear that Ms. Bergeron’s amended
complaint must comply with Local Rule 15.1(a), which requires any amended pleading to
“be complete in itself” and “not incorporate by reference any prior pleading.” (Id.) Ms.
Bergeron has not filed any documents since November 27, 2023, or requested an extension
to any filing deadlines. Accordingly, on December 18, 2023, Magistrate Judge Foster
ordered that Ms. Bergeron’s original complaint be deemed the operative pleading in this
matter. (Dec. 18, 2023 Order [Doc. No. 20].)

Ms. Bergeron’s deadline to file a response to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was
November 22, 2023. See Local Rule 7.1(c)(2) (a responding party must file and serve a
responsive memorandum of law within 21 days after the filing of a dispositive motion). To
date, Ms. Bergeron has not filed any such response, or any notice of her intent to do so.
Accordingly, the Court deems the motion to dismiss unopposed.

II. DISCUSSION
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and
construes them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Glick v. Western Power
Sports, Inc,

944 F.3d 714, 717

 (8th Cir. 2019). However, the Court “need not accept as true 

a plaintiff’s conclusory allegations or legal conclusions drawn from the facts.”

Id.

 (citing 
Hanten v. Sch. Dist. Of Riverview Gardens,

183 F.3d 199, 805

 (8th Cir. 1999)). Although 
a complaint may survive a Rule 12(b)(6) without detailed allegations, it must contain 
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 
face.’”

Id.

 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678

 (2009)).        
    Although pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, they must still allege 

sufficient facts to support the claims advanced. Sandknop v. Missouri Dep’t of Corrs.,

932 F.3d 739, 742

 (8th Cir. 2019). The Court “is not required to divine the litigant’s intent and 
create claims that are not clearly raised, and it need not conjure up unpled allegations to 
save a complaint.” Gregory v. Dillard’s, Inc.,

565 F.3d 464, 473

 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing 
cases).                                                                   
    Ms. Bergeron’s complaint, construed liberally and in the light most favorable to her, 

does not allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Absent 
any factual allegations to support the causes of action listed, the complaint fails to give the 
Defendant any adequate notice of the nature of the lawsuit against it and fails to state any 
plausible  basis  for  the  lawsuit.  The  Court  finds  that  Ms.  Bergeron  has  had  ample 
opportunity  to  amend  her  pleadings  and  to  respond  to  the  Defendant’s  motion. 

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 
12(b)(6).                                                                 
    Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a plausible claim, 
the Court need not consider the Defendant’s alternative grounds for dismissal under Rule 
12(b)(5). See Stennes v. Summit Mortg. Corp., No. 12-cv-913 (SRN/AJB),

2012 WL 5378086

, at *1–2 (D. Minn. Oct. 31, 2012) (dismissing a complaint with prejudice on a 
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, despite alternative grounds to dismiss without prejudice). 
III.  ORDER                                                               
    Based  on  the  submissions  and  the  entire  file  and  proceedings  herein,  IT  IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that:                                                      

         1.   Defendant Accra Care, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 
         2.   The Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.                 

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                      
Dated: February 14, 2024             /s/ Susan Richard Nelson             
                                    SUSAN RICHARD NELSON                 
                                    United States District Judge