Randy Brown v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider allegations (continued on next page
• holding that “a district court errs in failing to consider a pro se litigant’s complaint ‘in light of’ all filings, including filings responsive to a motion to dismiss”
• holding that “section 2000a-3(c) of the CRA does not constitute a jurisdictional 6 prerequisite,” after analyzing the import of recent Supreme Court cases on older, conflicting 7 cases
• holding that “a district court errs in failing to consider a pro se litigant’s complaint in light of all filings, including filings responsive to a motion to dismiss” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• holding that the district court should have considered all of the pro se 1 Gill filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) and a memorandum in support of the opposition (ECF No. 19
• holding district court must consider all pro se litigant’s allegations when considering a motion to dismiss, including those found in plaintiffs opposition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).