Nixon et al v. Arizona Association Manufactured Home Owners Incorporated

Filing 37

ORDER granting 30 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying as moot 34 Defendant's Motion for Ruling; denying as moot 36 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/16/12.(DMT)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Patrick E. Nixon and Jean-Marie Nixon, Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 13 No. CV-11-01514-PHX-DGC ORDER v. Arizona Association of Manufactured Home Owners, Inc., Defendant. 14 15 Pro se Plaintiffs Patrick E. Nixon and Jean-Marie Nixon filed a complaint against 16 Defendant Arizona Association of Manufactured Home Owners, Inc., alleging violations 17 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and 18 requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and civil penalties. Doc. 1. Defendant filed a 19 motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 14) and Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. 16). 20 The Court granted the motion on February 9, 2012. Doc. 23. The Court found that 21 Plaintiffs had failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim or to provide any factual 22 detail about what happened that would entitle them to relief. Id. at 2. Because Plaintiffs 23 are pro se, the Court granted leave to amend and instructed Plaintiffs on how to comply 24 with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 25 3. The Court also stated that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint must show that they had 26 complied with required administrative procedures. Id. 27 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 24, 2012, alleging claims under 28 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3) as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 1 (Doc. 27), and Defendant filed a second motion for judgment on the pleadings on 2 March 8, 2012. Doc. 30. Although Plaintiffs had responded to the first motion for 3 judgment on the pleadings and therefore clearly knew that a response was required and 4 how to file one, Plaintiffs did not file a response to the second motion. As a result, 5 Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition of the second motion. 6 Defendant also sought an extension of the discovery schedule. Doc. 36. For the reasons 7 that follow, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and 8 deny Defendant’s remaining motions as moot. 9 I. Doc. 34. Legal Standard. 10 A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 11 Procedure 12(c) “is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving 12 party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 13 Fajardo v. County of L.A., 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1998); see Elvig v. Calvin 14 Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that in ruling on a 15 Rule 12(c) motion the court must accept as true all allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint 16 and treat as false the allegations in the defendant’s answer that contradict the plaintiff’s 17 allegations). In other words, dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(c) is inappropriate if the facts 18 as pled would entitle the plaintiff to a remedy. Merchants Home Delivery Serv., Inc. v. 19 Hall & Co., 50 F.3d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.1995). 20 II. Discussion. 21 After having an opportunity to amend their complaint, Plaintiffs have once again 22 failed to allege facts showing that either of them is entitled to a remedy. See Ashcroft v. 23 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). (“where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to 24 infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has 25 not ‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 26 The amended complaint contains three specific allegations with respect to Patrick 27 E. Nixon: that Defendant denied Mr. Nixon’s claims for expenses incurred on its behalf 28 while he served on the association’s board of directors, that Defendant created a hostile -2- 1 environment for him as a disabled veteran, and that Defendant retaliated against him for 2 speaking out about its violations of bylaws and state and federal laws. Doc. 27, ¶¶ 1-3; 4- 3 5; 8. The amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support any of these 4 assertions. It does not identify any expenses Mr. Nixon incurred on behalf of Defendant 5 or the circumstances surrounding Defendant’s alleged denials for reimbursement from 6 which the Court could reasonably infer that the denials were unlawful or motivated by 7 discriminatory intent. 8 The complaint provides a single factual allegation in support of Mr. Nixon’s 9 hostile environment claim – that, at a December 9, 2010 board meeting, the Treasurer 10 screamed at Mr. Nixon in front of the board that “you are insane and your [sic] crazy” 11 and continued to scream at him outside the building. Id., ¶¶ 4-5. The complaint fails to 12 allege any circumstances surrounding this alleged act from which the Court reasonably 13 could infer that Defendant intentionally created a hostile environment for Mr. Nixon on 14 the basis of his disability. Nor does the complaint allege that Mr. Nixon was employed 15 by Defendant. 16 17 The amended complaint does not allege any retaliatory actions that Mr. Nixon suffered for speaking out. 18 As the Court previously stated, “[t]he amended complaint must provide the factual 19 basis for each claim and give Defendant ‘fair notice of what [Plaintiff’s] claim is and the 20 grounds upon which it is based.’” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). 21 The complaint clearly fails to do so. 22 The amended complaint makes two allegations with respect to Jean-Marie Nixon: 23 that as “a highly qualified Hispanic female, with a disability and a known association 24 with a disabled person,” Ms. Nixon received disparate treatment in the selection process 25 for Education Director; and that she also suffered retaliatory conduct. Doc. 27, ¶¶ 6-7; 8. 26 The amended complaint’s sole factual allegation with respect to Ms. Nixon’s disparate 27 treatment is that she was subjected to an “unprecedented interview process on June 2, 28 2011.” The complaint alleges no facts about the interview process or what made it -3- 1 “unprecedented,” and provides no additional facts from which the Court reasonably could 2 infer disparate treatment or retaliation. 3 Defendant explains in its motion why the complaint fails to state a claim under 42 4 U.S.C. § 1981, which requires a showing of intentional racial discrimination; § 1983, 5 which requires that Defendant be a state actor or take actions “under color of state law”; 6 and § 1985(3), which requires a showing of a conspiracy. Doc. 30 at 4, 5, 11-12. To the 7 extent that Plaintiffs attempt to make claims under the ADA or the Civil Rights Act, 8 Defendant explains how these claims also fail. Id. at 6-11. In particular, Plaintiffs fail to 9 allege any facts to support a disability under the ADA or to show that Defendant is an 10 employer under Title I of the ADA, a State or local government entity under Title II, or 11 that Plaintiffs were denied access to a place of public accommodation under Title III. See 12 id. at 6-9. Plaintiffs similarly fail to set forth the prima facie elements for a claim under 13 Title II or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See id. at 10-11. In addition to the factual 14 deficiencies of the complaint, Defendant notes that Plaintiffs have failed to show they 15 pursued required administrative remedies under these Acts. Id. at 6-7, 10-11. 16 Defendant’s second motion for judgment on the pleadings is well taken. Because 17 the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any of the legal theories 18 presented, and Plaintiffs have not responded or requested further leave to amend, the 19 Court will grant judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendant. 20 IT IS ORDERED: 21 1. (Doc. 30) is granted. 22 23 Defendant Defendant’s second motion for judgment on the pleadings 2. Defendant’s motion for summary disposition (Doc. 34) and its motion for extension of discovery (Doc. 36.) are denied as moot. 24 25 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action. 26 Dated this 16th day of May, 2012. 27 28 -4-

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?