Evans v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District et al

Filing 10

ORDER: The 5 Motion to Dismiss by the Maricopa County Special Health Care District dba Maricopa Integrated Health Systems is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by 09/07/12. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by 09/07/12, the Clerk will terminate this case without further notice to Plaintiff. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 8/23/12. (NKS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10

Laraine Evans,

11

No. CV 12-01089-PHX-NVW
Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

ORDER

Maricopa County Special Health Care
District, et al.,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss by the Maricopa County Special Health
Care District dba Maricopa Integrated Health Systems (“SHCD”) (Doc. 5).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must contain
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must allege facts sufficient “to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Each allegation
must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
A claim must be stated clearly enough to provide each defendant fair opportunity
to frame a responsive pleading. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996).
“Something labeled a complaint . . ., yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a
complaint.” Id. at 1180.
The Complaint in this case fails to meet the standard set by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
because it does not clearly identify whom Plaintiff is suing for what wrongs. The caption
naming SHCD, “COBRA Administrator,” and fictitious defendants is punctuated with a
comma separating SHCD and “COBRA Administrator” and a semicolon separating those
names from the fictitious defendants, which indicates that SHCD and “COBRA
Administrator” are not independent entities.

Further, no summons was issued to

“COBRA Administrator,” nor has proof of service on “COBRA Administrator” been
filed even though the Complaint was filed more than 120 days ago. But Plaintiff’s
response to the motion to dismiss contends that SHCD lacks standing to seek dismissal of
a co-defendant, the COBRA Administrator, as though “COBRA Administrator” is a
separate defendant.
Adding to the confusion, the Complaint states, “Collectively, [SHCD] and
COBRA Administrator are referred to interchangeably herein as Defendants.”

The

Complaint alleges “abuse, harassment, and discrimination by Defendants”; “bullying,
ridicule, and retaliation by Defendant and [Plaintiff’s] co-workers”; “Defendant and/or
COBRA Administrator failed to provide Ms. Evans with any information regarding
election of continuation of group insurance benefits”; “harassment Ms. Evans endured by
Defendant was so frequent or severe that it created a hostile or offensive work
environment”; “While employed by Defendants, Ms. Evans was harassed, intimidated,
and forced to work in conditions where patients’ rights and safety were being
jeopardized”; “a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s refusal to reasonably
accommodate Ms. Evans”; etc. The Complaint does not clearly identify which Defendant
allegedly committed which acts.
Moreover, the Complaint does not provide each Defendant with notice of what
they allegedly did wrong. It alleges that Plaintiff was “the victim of pervasive and severe

28
-2 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

harassment,” but not whether that was related to her disability or to her reporting her
concerns about patient safety. Count I, against “All Defendants,” is titled “Disability
Discrimination and Harassment,” but does not allege discrimination or harassment on the
basis of disability. Instead, it alleges, “On a systemic, severe, and pervasive basis during
her employment, Ms. Evans was harassed, intimidated, and forced to work in conditions
where patients’ rights and safety were being jeopardized.”

Count II, against “All

Defendants,” is titled “Disability Retaliation” and alleges she was terminated because she
requested unpaid leave and she had submitted a complaint to the Nursing Board. But
Count III, against SHCD, is titled “Whistleblower Retaliation” and alleges she was
terminated because she reported employees’ disregard of patient health plans to the state
Nursing Board. Count V, against SHCD, is titled “Hostile Work Environment,” but does
not allege that “the intimidation, ridicule, and insult” were related to her disability or any
other legal basis for a cause of action.
Finally, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was informed that her unpaid leave
under the Family Medical Leave Act would end on July 20, 2011, and she must submit
additional documentation regarding her health restrictions to be considered for further
unpaid leave.

It alleges that her physician was unable to provide the additional

documentation and ordered Plaintiff not to return to work for the next six months. In her
EEOC Charge of Discrimination, Plaintiff stated that on August 10, 2011, she received
notice of SHCD’s intent to terminate her employment. The Complaint alleges that on
August 17, 2011, Plaintiff requested unpaid leave, and on August 18, 2011, her
employment was terminated because she was unable to perform the essential functions of
her position. As currently pled, Plaintiff’s factual allegations imply that she quit her job,
not that she was terminated.
Because leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires,” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff will be given opportunity to amend the Complaint to cure the
pleading deficiencies identified by the Court and by SHCD.

28
-3 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss by the Maricopa
County Special Health Care District dba Maricopa Integrated Health Systems (Doc. 5) is
granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by
September 7, 2012. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by September 7,
2012, the Clerk will terminate this case without further notice to Plaintiff.
Dated this 23rd day of August, 2012.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4