Baker v. Walgreens Company

Filing 43

ORDER - The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court's Rule 16(b) 15 Scheduling Order, is hereby amended to establish a new deadline of Friday, May 20, 2016, for all dispositive motions to be filed. The Court's Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order, is hereby amended to grant the parties leave to file a second motion for summary judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 05/05/2016. (ATD)

WO
1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Karen M. Baker,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-00342-PHX-JAT

Walgreens Arizona Drug Company,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the Court is the issue of whether independent jurisdiction exists to

16

hear a state-law claim alleged by Plaintiff Karen M. Baker. On April 18, 2016, the Court

17

granted Defendant Walgreens Arizona Drug Company’s motion for summary judgment

18

on Plaintiff’s federal law claims. (Doc. 40 at 7-22). Liberally interpreting Plaintiff’s pro-

19

se pleading, the Court also identified one state-law claw for “wrongful termination” on

20

which Defendant did not seek summary judgment. (Doc. 40 at 22-23). Absent an active

21

federal law claim by Plaintiff, the question arose of whether the Court had independent

22

jurisdiction to hear a purely state-law claim under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2012), or

23

whether the Court must exercise discretion and choose to hear or dismiss the claim

24

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (2012). (Doc. 40 at 22-23).

25

Having received and reviewed the parties’ briefs, the Court hereby finds that

26

independent jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s purely state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1332

27

does not exist. Both Plaintiff and Defendant are residents of the state of Arizona, and

28

diversity among the parties’ citizenship does not exist. The Court must therefore

1

determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim

2

via 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3

Plaintiff has provided little substance to her state-law claim. The Complaint

4

simply alleged that Defendant “[t]erminated her employment against state law” by

5

“[w]illfully and knowingly fabricat[ing] a lie and accus[ing] Plaintiff of theft.” (Doc. 1 at

6

4). Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment likewise did not

7

substantiate the claim; (Doc. 36 at 6); Plaintiff simply provided a narrative of the events

8

she asserts constitute a violation of Arizona law. (Id. at 6 – 11). Plaintiff’s brief on the

9

issue of subject matter jurisdiction also did not provide any further substance to the

10

claim. The result is that Count II of the Complaint does not identify any specific basis for

11

Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pleadings, as the

12

Court must, Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted),

13

the Court finds that the Complaint alleges a violation of A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(b)(i)

14

(2014), asserting that Plaintiff was terminated in violation of a state statute, the “civil

15

rights act prescribed in title 41, chapter 9” of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Absent

16

anything to substantiate her state-law claim, the Court’s inability to identify a viable

17

cause of action under the Arizona Employment Protection Act (“AEPA”) for making

18

false accusations about an employee, and given the substantive allegations of civil rights

19

violations in the Complaint, the Court finds that A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(b)(i) is the statutory

20

vehicle for Plaintiff’s state-law wrongful termination claim.

21

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s state-law claim is part of

22

the same controversy as her federal law discrimination claims, and that judicial efficiency

23

will be promoted by hearing the claim. Thus, the Court will, in its discretion, exercise

24

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim under A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(b)(i)

25

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Trustees of Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare

26

Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 926 (9th Cir. 2003).

27

The Court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) Scheduling Order established a deadline for all

28

dispositive motions to be filed no later than January 21, 2016. (Doc. 15). In light of the

-2-

1

Court’s decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim,

2

and the ambiguities about the nature of the claim in the original Complaint, the Court will

3

re-open the dispositive motions phase of these proceedings, (Doc. 15 at 4), and set a new

4

deadline of Friday, May 20, 2016, for the parties to file. The Court will also amend the

5

Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order, (Doc. 15 at 4), and grant the parties leave to file a second

6

motion for summary judgment.

7

Finally, the Court will not consider Plaintiff’s claim of “defamation of character,”

8

included in her brief on jurisdiction. (Doc. 41 at 3). This is the first mention of this

9

theory, but any motion to amend the Complaint was due no later than August 28, 2015.

10

(Doc. 15 at 2). Plaintiff has not shown good cause to amend the Complaint at this late

11

date, and her attempt to do so is therefore denied. See TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v.

12

Avago Tech. Ltd., No. CV-09-01531-PHX-JAT, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89690, at *15-18

13

(D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2010) (discussing untimely motions to amend under Rule 16).

14

For these reasons,

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court will exercise supplemental

16

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order,

18

(Doc. 15), is hereby amended to establish a new deadline of Friday, May 20, 2016, for all

19

dispositive motions to be filed.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order,

21

(Doc. 15 at 4), is hereby amended to grant the parties leave to file a second motion for

22

summary judgment.

23

Dated this 5th day of May, 2016.

24
25
26
27
28

-3-