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)

Download PDF
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

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?