ROST ROSS STORES, INC.

Price Chart

Executive Summary

The court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed, finding that the pro se plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 18 U.S.C. § 242 because Ross Stores is a private entity not acting under color of state law. The plaintiff seeks $530,000 in emotional distress damages, but the court identified fatal jurisdictional and pleading defects. This is a routine, low-value individual lawsuit with no material financial exposure for Ross Stores.

Court Ruling Details

Actionable Insight

Key Facts

• Plaintiff Jevarien Dunlap sued Ross Stores for $530,000 in emotional distress damages based on an alleged racial profiling incident at a Daly City store.
• The court sua sponte ordered Dunlap to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Dunlap's claims under § 1983 and § 242 fail because Ross Stores is a private entity not acting under color of state law.
• The complaint is internally inconsistent (plaintiff states 'this is not racial profiling' in the facts but asserts racial profiling in the legal claim).
• Dunlap has four weeks to file an amended complaint or response; failure will result in a recommendation of dismissal.

Financial Impact

Plaintiff seeks $530,000 in emotional distress damages — trivial relative to Ross Stores' $73B market cap (0.0007%). No damages awarded; case likely to be dismissed.

Risk Factors

• If plaintiff files an amended complaint that somehow states a viable state-law claim, the case could survive on diversity jurisdiction, but the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold is not met here.
• No precedent risk — this is an individual case with no class action or industry-wide implications.

Market Snapshot

Documents Analyzed

This report is based on 1 court opinion from CourtListener.

US Market Status