Ortiz v. Logisticare Solutions, LLC

Filing 47

ORDER denying ECF No. 32 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 08/04/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11

SHANTELL ORTIZ,

12

Case No. 2:16-cv-01805-MMD-VCF
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
13
14

LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive,

15
Defendants.
16
17
18

After hearing argument on December 13, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s two

19

federal disability discrimination and retaliation claims without prejudice and with leave to

20

amend. (ECF No. 29.) Defendant now argues that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to

21

comply with the Court’s Order in that it continues to contain boilerplate conclusory

22

allegation that Plaintiff filed her administrative complaint “within 300 days from the last

23

discriminatory act and adverse employment action.” (ECF No. 32.) At the December 13,

24

2016, hearing, the Court found that Plaintiff initiated her complaint with the Nevada Equal

25

Rights Commission (“NERC”) by her filing of the NERC intake inquiry form on October

26

15, 2015 (ECF No. 19-1).1 (ECF No. 31 at 15-18.) The Court found, however, that the

27

Complaint failed to allege that Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination within the limitations

28

1The

Court took judicial notice of this form. (ECF No. 31 at 16.)

1

period—300 days from the last incident of alleged discrimination.2 For this reason, the

2

Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that her Amended

3

Complaint complies with the Court’s Order.

4

It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32) is denied.

5
6

DATED THIS 4th day of August 2017.

7
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2The

Complaint alleges that a charge was filed “within 180 days of the commission
of the unlawful employment practice alleged herein and/or within 300 days of PLAINTIFF
instituting proceedings with a State or local agency with authority[.]” (ECF No. 1 at 2.)
This allegation is not sufficient for the Court to reasonably infer that Plaintiff has exhausted
her administrative remedies. (ECF No. 31 at 15.)
2