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-
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?