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)

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-