Benavides v. Oklahoma City, City of et al
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 4/14/2011. (cps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROLAND BENAVIDES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY;
OKLAHOMA CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT; BILL CITTY, in his
official and individual capacities; KIM
FLOWERS, in her individual and official
capacities; DALE SNEED, in his official
and individual capacities; JOHN
LAMBERT, in his official and individual
capacities; BRYAN AARON, in his
official and individual capacities; DAVID
SHUPE, in his official and individual
capacities; and RONNIE BECK, in his
official and individual capacities,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Number CIV-11-126-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed this action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”) and the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601
et seq. (“FMLA”). Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), alleging Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to adequately plead a claim for relief.
Specifically, Defendant Oklahoma City Police Department (“OCPD”) argues it is not an
entity that can be sued; Defendants Citty, Flowers, Sneed, Lambert, Aaron, Shupe, and Beck
argue the claims against them in their official capacities should be dismissed as duplicative
to the claims against Defendant City of Oklahoma City; and Defendants Citty, Flowers,
Sneed, Lambert, Aaron, and Shupe argue that there is no individual liability under the ADA
or the FMLA and even if there were Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a
claim against them. Plaintiff has filed a response to some of the motions, confessed others,
and simply ignored others.
1. City of Oklahoma City Police Department.
This Defendant argues that it is not an entity that can be sued and requests dismissal
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and/or 17(b). Plaintiff has offered no response to the
argument. Therefore, the Court will accept Defendant’s supported factual allegations as true.
In support of its motion, OCPD relies on Oklahoma statutes setting forth the authority of the
City of Oklahoma City to create various departments and offices, and ordinances of the City
of Oklahoma City which created OCPD. According to OCPD, as a subordinate department
of the City of Oklahoma City, OCPD lacks the ability to sue or be sued. The Tenth Circuit
has held that a subordinate department of a municipality is not a proper defendant. See
Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444 (10th Cir. 1985). For these reasons, Defendant
OCPD’s motion will be granted and this Defendant will be dismissed with prejudice.
2. Official Capacity Claims.
Plaintiff sued Defendants Citty, Flowers, Sneed, Lambert, Aaron, Shupe, and Beck
in their official capacities. These Defendants now seek dismissal of the official capacity
claims arguing they are duplicative of the claims against Defendant City of Oklahoma City.
Plaintiff does not dispute that the claims are duplicative, but argues that alone is not reason
for dismissal. While dismissal is not required, it will reduce possible confusion over which
2
Defendants are potentially liable for which claims. Further, dismissal will have no effect on
Plaintiff’s ability to pursue his claims. For these reasons, the official capacity claims against
Defendants Citty, Flowers, Sneed, Lambert, Aaron, Shupe, and Beck will be dismissed with
prejudice.
3. Individual Capacity Claims
A. ADA Claims.
Defendants Citty, Flowers, Sneed, Lambert, Aaron, and Shupe seek dismissal of the
ADA claims against them, arguing the Tenth Circuit has held there is no individual liability
under the ADA. In response, Plaintiff concedes that the ADA claims against Aaron,
Lambert, and Sneed should be dismissed. However, Plaintiff argues that ADA claims against
Citty, Flowers, and Shupe should survive as those individuals are “agents” of the City of
Oklahoma City under 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A).
Plaintiff’s arguments regarding Defendants Citty, Flowers, and Shupe are not well
founded. The Tenth Circuit has specifically held that there is no individual liability under
the ADA. See Butler v. City of Prairie Village, Kan., 172 F.3d 736, 744 (10th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff has offered no argument to disregard this clear precedent. Accordingly, the ADA
claims against Defendants Citty, Flowers, Sneed, Lambert, Aaron, and Shupe will be
dismissed with prejudice.
B. FMLA Claims.
Defendants Citty, Flowers, Sneed, Lambert, Aaron, and Shupe seek dismissal of the
FMLA claims against them, arguing Plaintiff has failed to plead facts which state a claim for
3
relief. Defendants point to the lack of factual allegations in the Complaint from which a
claim for violation of the FMLA could be found. In response, Plaintiff argues that the
Complaint is adequate to state a claim against these Defendants. The Court disagrees.
Defendants’ request for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6)
requires the Court to examine the well-pled allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and
determine if they state a plausible claim for relief. The Court must examine the “specific
allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for
relief.” Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007), and Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94
(2007)). “[T]he mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of
facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason
to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these
claims.” Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1247 (10th Cir. 2007).
Under this standard, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state an FMLA claim for relief against the
individual Defendants. Rather, Plaintiff’s Complaint is nothing more than conclusory
allegations of purported discrimination and/or retaliation.
While the issue of individual liability for an FMLA violation is not as clearly defined
as that of the ADA, it is clear that at a minimum, before an individual falls within the
definition of employer, that person must act, directly or indirectly in the interest of an
employer to any employee. See Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Assoc., Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 608
(6th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. Miller, 489 F.3d 293 (6th Cir.
4
2007); Wascura v. Carver, 169 F.3d 683, 685 (11th Cir. 1999). That is, there must be some
supervisory authority by the individual Defendants in relation to Plaintiff and his request for
FMLA leave. The Complaint fails to make this required connection. Thus, Plaintiff has
failed to raise his FMLA claims against the individual Defendants to the level of plausibility.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s FMLA claims against the individual Defendants will be dismissed
without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Special Appearance, Motion to Dismiss in Support
of Defendant Oklahoma City Police Department (Dkt. No. 9); Defendant Aaron’s Motion to
Dismiss Him from Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14); Defendant Flower’s Motion
to Dismiss Her from Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 15); Defendant Shupe’s Motion to
Dismiss Him from Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 16); Defendant Citty’s Motion to Dismiss
Him from Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 17); the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Dale
Sneed and John Lambert (Dkt. No. 19); and the Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss
of Individual Defendants in Their Official Capacities (Dkt. No. 21) are GRANTED. Plaintiff
claims against OCPD, the official capacity claims against the individual Defendants, and
Plaintiff’s ADA claims against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities are
DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s FMLA claims against the individual Defendants in
their individual capacities are DISMISSED without prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff wishes
to amend his claims against these Defendants, his Amended Complaint must be filed within
5
10 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s claims against the City of Oklahoma City are
not affected by this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2011.
6
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?