Eagle v. Bill Alexander Automotive Center Incorporated

Filing 56

ORDER granting 21 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court enters judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff's ADEA claim for hostile work environment to the extent Plaintiff attempted to allege a separate claim for harassmen t/hostile work environment under the ADEA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant's request to strike certain paragraphs from the Complaint and denying without prejudice Defendant's request for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 6/5/12.(LSP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 8 James Eagle, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 No. CV11-1148-PHX-JAT ORDER v. Bill Alexander Automotive Center, Inc., Defendant. 13 Defendant Bill Alexander Automotive Center, Inc. filed a Motion for Partial 14 Summary Judgment on October 12, 2011. (Doc. 21). Defendant seeks judgment on 15 Plaintiff James Eagle’s claim for a hostile work environment under the Age 16 Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). 17 jurisdiction over the hostile work environment claim because Plaintiff’s EEOC charge 18 does not mention harassment/hostile work environment. Defendant argues the Court lacks 19 The Court does not need to decide whether Plaintiff exhausted a claim for 20 harassment/hostile work environment under the ADEA in his administrative charge 21 because Plaintiff concedes in his Response to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 22 that he is not attempting to state a separate, stand-alone ADEA claim for hostile work 23 environment. (Doc. 31, p. 2 “Mr. Eagle is not asserting a separate claim for a hostile 24 work environment based upon his age, sixty-seven.”). The Court therefore grants partial 25 summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim for harassment/hostile work 26 environment under the ADEA, to the extent Plaintiff even attempted to allege such a 27 separate claim. Plaintiff’s claim for discrimination in violation of the AEDA remains. 28 In its Reply, Defendant asks the Court to strike paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, F 1 and G of the Complaint. The Court will deny this request because Defendant has not 2 articulated a legal basis for striking those sections of the Complaint, and it appears the 3 time for filing a motion to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) has 4 passed because Defendant already has answered the Complaint. 5 12(f)(2)(Party must file a motion to strike “either before responding to the pleading or, if 6 a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.”). 7 Moreover, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that any age-related comments or behavior by 8 Defendant could be relevant to Plaintiff’s age-discrimination claim. F.R.Civ.P. 9 Also in the Reply, Defendant asks the Court to award it attorneys’ fees for having 10 to brief the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court will deny this request as 11 well because Defendant again does not articulate a legal basis for its request. This denial 12 is without prejudice to Defendant filing a properly supported motion for fees. 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary 15 Judgment (Doc. 21). The Court enters judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff’s ADEA 16 claim for hostile work environment to the extent Plaintiff attempted to allege a separate 17 claim for harassment/hostile work environment under the ADEA. 18 19 20 21 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying Defendant’s request to strike certain paragraphs from the Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying without prejudice Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees. Dated this 5th day of June, 2012. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?