Vera Lucia Alves Bispo v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

Supreme Court
No. 2019-428-Appeal.
(PC 19-3586)
Vera Lucia Alves Bispo :
v. :
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, :
Inc.
ORDER
The instant case arises as a result of allegations by the plaintiff, Vera Lucia
Alves Bispo, that the defendant, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Cracker
Barrel), discriminated against her because of her race. This case came before the
Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to show
cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After
examining the written submissions of the parties,1 we are of the opinion that cause
has not been shown and that the appeal may be resolved without further briefing or
argument. For the reasons set forth in this order, we affirm the order of the
Superior Court.
1
We would note that Ms. Bispo did not appear before this Court for oral
argument, although she had been provided with notice thereof. Accordingly, we
have decided the appeal on the papers.
-1-
On March 8, 2019, Ms. Bispo, a self-represented plaintiff, filed a complaint
in the Providence County Superior Court, alleging that she had been discriminated
against by defendant because of her race. Ms. Bispo stated that she had been
shopping at a Cracker Barrel store in Coventry, Rhode Island, when a store
employee approached her and asked if she needed any help. Ms. Bispo further
alleged that, even though she told the employee that she was “just browsing,” the
same employee approached her fifteen or twenty minutes later and asked again if
she needed any help. Ms. Bispo’s complaint also alleged that the Cracker Barrel
employee “harassed [her] by following and stalking her” and that “[n]o other
customers in the store on that date were subject to the same harassment * * *.”
She also alleged that Cracker Barrel had “discriminated against the plaintiff
because she was black.”
On May 3, 2019, Cracker Barrel filed a motion for a more definite statement
on the grounds that Ms. Bispo’s complaint was “vague and ambiguous” and
“fail[ed] to state any specific cause of action to which Cracker Barrel [could]
substantively respond in an answer or motion.” Cracker Barrel further pointed out
that the complaint made “reference to discrimination, but without any clarity as to
what specific law or laws Defendant purportedly violated.”
On May 8, 2019, Ms. Bispo filed with the court a handwritten document,
which she referred to as her “more definite statement.” In that document, she
-2-
made the following requests: (1) “that all employees of [Cracker Barrel] be
afforded the opportunity to visit the African Museum in Washington, D.C. to learn
about my people;” (2) that “the person who harassed [her] and discriminated
against [her] have to do some community services and 3 hours of African studies;”
and (3) that she be paid a very substantial sum of money and “that all assets be
frozen until the fulfillment of the requirements.”
A hearing took place on May 30, 2019 with respect to Cracker Barrel’s
motion for a more definite statement and Ms. Bispo’s response thereto. On the
following day, the hearing justice granted Cracker Barrel’s motion and ordered Ms.
Bispo to “enter a more definite statement within thirty (30) days from the granting
of this Motion, in this case July 1, 2019.” Ms. Bispo failed to meet that deadline.
On July 2, 2019, one day after the thirty-day deadline had passed, Cracker
Barrel moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that: (1) Ms. Bispo had failed to
comply with an order of the Superior Court; and (2) Ms. Bispo’s complaint failed
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The parties were heard with
respect to that motion on September 18, 2019. At that hearing, the hearing justice
stated as follows:
“I have reviewed the multiple pleadings or
responses that have been submitted by the plaintiff. And
even though the plaintiff is self-represented, there is still
a requirement that she follow the rules of the state and
also follow this [c]ourt’s orders.
-3-
“A more definite statement was ordered in May. It
was not supplied. The document that was filed in
August, even if I were to excuse the late filing,[2] still
does not meet the standards required to state a cognizable
claim. And I am, therefore, granting the defendant’s
motion to dismiss this complaint.”
An order to that effect entered on October 28, 2019, before which time Ms. Bispo
filed a premature notice of appeal to this Court.
On appeal, Ms. Bispo filed a two-page prebriefing statement pursuant to
Article I, Rule 12A of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. In that
statement, Ms. Bispo contends that, when she went to the Cracker Barrel store to
buy clothing for her nieces, she was “followed, harassed, stalked, racially profiled
and discriminated against because of the color of [her] skin.” Nowhere in the
course of her Rule 12A statement to this Court does Ms. Bispo provide any
developed argument or explanation concerning an assignment of error on the part
of the trial justice. As such, Ms. Bispo has waived her right to discuss or develop
her arguments before this Court. See McMahon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust
Co., 131 A.3d 175, 176 (R.I. 2016) (mem.) (“We decline to scour the record to
identify facts in support of the plaintiff’s broad claims, and we will not give life to
arguments that the plaintiff has failed to develop on [her] own. We deem the
2
It should be noted that, on August 9, 2019 (after Cracker Barrel had filed its
motion to dismiss the case), Ms. Bispo filed a document with the court which she
referred to as her “response to motion to dismiss,” which document the hearing
justice referred to as the “late filing.”
-4-
plaintiff’s arguments in support of [her] appeal waived.”); see also Giddings v.
Arpin, 160 A.3d 314, 316 (R.I. 2017) (mem.) (“This Court has held that [s]imply
stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or
legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal
questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted); Bucci v. Hurd Buick Pontiac GMC Truck, LLC, 85 A.3d
1160, 1170 (R.I. 2014).
For the reasons set forth in this order, we affirm the order of the Superior
Court. The record may be returned to that tribunal.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 14th day of June, 2021.
By Order,
/s/
______________________________
Clerk
-5-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Vera Lucia Alves Bispo v. Cracker Barrel Old
Title of Case
Country Store, Inc.
No. 2019-428-Appeal.
Case Number
(PC 19-3586)
Date Order Filed June 14, 2021
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Melissa E. Darigan
For Plaintiff:
Vera Lucia Alves Bispo, Pro Se
Attorney(s) on Appeal
For Defendant:
Aaron A. Spacone, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised June 2020)