Anderson v. Skanska USA Inc

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CARLOS ANDERSON, Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 2:22-cv-01007-RAJ v. 11 ORDER SKANSKA USA, INC., et al., Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) Motion to Dismiss. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court GRANTS the motion. Dkt. # 13.

Plaintiff generally alleges that he suffered discrimination and retaliation while employed by contractors working on an Microsoft-owned property. See Dkt. # 1. In addition to being conclusory, the allegations against Microsoft fail to plead sufficient facts to show that Microsoft was Plaintiff’s employer, owed him any duty, or was otherwise in a relationship to him in order to support his claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint against Microsoft is subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because it fails to set forth facts sufficient to establish any plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court also considers Plaintiff’s non-opposition “as an admission that the motion has merit.” LCR 7(b)(2).

2 For the reasons above, the Court DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s claims against Microsoft with prejudice, and DISMISSES Microsoft from this lawsuit.

5 DATED this 30th day of November, 2022.

A The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge