Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00464/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00464-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alan N. Ariav, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV03-0464-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently, before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of

Subject Matter Jurisdiction, (Dkt. #42), and Defendant's Motion to Strike. (Dkt. #93).

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Alan Ariav is an attorney who was a shareholder at the law firm of Mesch,

Clark & Rothschild, P.C., until April 28, 2003, when he was terminated with pay and benefits

through May 31, 2003. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that the termination and other related

conduct by Defendant Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C., violated his rights under the Family

and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. 

On September 12, 2003, Defendant Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C., moved to

dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

arguing that the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) does not apply to the law firm,

because the law firm employed fewer than 50 employees during the time periods at issue. 

Case 4:03-cv-00464-MHM Document 121 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 4
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

28

- 2 -

By its Order filed July 15, 2004, this Court converted the motion to dismiss into a

motion for summary judgment and granted Plaintiff a Rule 56(f) continuance to allow

Plaintiff to obtain discovery on the limited issue of whether Defendant employed 50 persons

for the requisite time between January 1, 2002, and April 28, 2003. On September 20, 2004,

the Court concluded Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to prevent judgment as a

matter of law on the threshold issue of whether Defendant employed 50 employees for 20

weeks or more during the relevant time period.

On October 6, 2004, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction, arguing Plaintiff must establish the jurisdictional threshold of 50 employees for

the Court to have subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. On February 8, 2005, an

evidentiary hearing was held regarding the issue of whether Defendant employed 50

employees for 20 weeks or more during the relevant time period. Prior to the evidentiary

hearing, the Court determined the issue of covered employee or covered employer under the

FMLA presents a mixed issue of merits and jurisdiction and should be determined under

Rule 56 standards. At the conclusion of the February 8, 2005 hearing, the Court took under

advisement Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

II. Discussion

On August 4, 2005, Plaintiff filed supplemental authority, indicating the United States

Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. to determine whether

statutory employee thresholds are jurisdictional or merely relate to the merits of the

employees' claims, to which Defendant responded. The Court has reviewed the Amicus Brief

filed by the United States and finds its reasoning, employee thresholds merely relate to the

merits of the employees' claims, persuasive. See, Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-683

(1946) (concluding “where the complaint, as here, is so drawn as to seek recovery directly

under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the federal court . . . must entertain the

suit” unless the federal claim “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the

purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and

frivolous.”)

Case 4:03-cv-00464-MHM Document 121 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 4
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

28

- 3 -

On September 20, 2004, the Court concluded Plaintiff had presented sufficient

evidence to prevent judgment as a matter of law on the threshold issue of whether Defendant

employed 50 employees for 20 weeks or more during the relevant time period. Given the

persuasive analysis of the Government's Amicus Brief in Arbaugh, the Court will stand on

its September 20, 2004 Order and deny without prejudice the pending motions. Motions

related to the issue of whether Defendant employed 50 employees for 20 weeks or more

during the relevant time period may be reurged, as appropriate, at the close of full discovery

and/or upon direction from the Supreme Court in Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.. See Neiberger

v. Hawkins,150 F. Supp.2d 1118 (D. Colo. 2001) (holding in abeyance portion of the

defendant's motion, which sought dismissal of Plaintiffs' ADEA claim, pending issuance of

a ruling from the United States Supreme Court regarding whether the Act validly abrogated

states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by private individuals). 

In addition, the Court's rationale in denying Plaintiff's motion to Define the Applicable

Statutory Time Period was primarily based on the proximity the issue was raised to the

evidentiary hearing. As timeliness issues no longer necessitate the Court refraining from

looking to the merits of Plaintiff's argument, the Court concludes the relevant time period is

the current year in which the alleged violation may have occurred. See Rogers v. Sugar Tree

Prods., 7 F.3d 577, 580 (7th Cir.1993) (rejecting parties' erroneous stipulation to the relevant

time period as subverting jurisdictional provisions and concluding that under the ADEA

“[t]he current year is the year in which the alleged violation occurred, and the applicable

period does not cease on the date of the violation, but rather continues until the end of the

calendar year.”) Should the issue of whether Defendant employed 50 employees for 20

weeks or more during the relevant time period be reurged, the Court holds the relevant time

period is January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003. See, e.g., Komorowski v. Townline Mini

Mart and Restaurant, 162 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir.1998) (concluding under substantially

similar language in Title VII, “current calendar year” means the entire calendar year in which

the alleged discrimination occurred).

Accordingly,

Case 4:03-cv-00464-MHM Document 121 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 4
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

28

- 4 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of

Subject Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Dkt. #42).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant's Motion to Strike is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. (Dkt. #93).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference is scheduled

for October 27, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. The parties shall submit a revised scheduling order on

or before October 20, 2005. The revised scheduling order shall provide for the close of

discovery no later than March 1, 2005 and dispositive motions due no later than March 31,

2005. The parties should take notice, extensions of time will not be granted absent

compelling good cause.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2005.

Case 4:03-cv-00464-MHM Document 121 Filed 09/29/05 Page 4 of 4