Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01924/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01924-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Jeremy Atwell, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Surprise, a political

subdivision of the State of Arizona,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1924 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Jeremy Atwell filed a complaint against Daniel R. Hughes, Scott Connelly,

Charles R. Oliver, James Bowers, the City of Surprise, and the City of Surprise Police

Department, alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-3(a). Dkt. #1. On October 22, 2009, all Defendants filed

a motion to dismiss. Dkt. #7. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, but filed an amended

complaint on November 13, 2009, which added factual allegations and eliminated all

Defendants except the City of Surprise. Dkt. #12. Defendants filed a reply in support of

their motion. Dkt. #21.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss argues that ADA and Title VII claims cannot be

asserted against individuals. Dkt. #7. The amended complaint cures this deficiency by

dropping the individuals as Defendants. The motion also argues that the original complaint

fails to state a claim under current pleading standards. This argument was rendered moot

Case 2:09-cv-01924-DGC Document 26 Filed 12/16/09 Page 1 of 2
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 -

when Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding more detail. Dkt. #12. For these reasons,

the motion to dismiss will be denied.

Defendants also argue in their motion that the Court should impose sanctions and

attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff. Dkt. #7. The Court finds the request for attorneys’ fees to

be premature. All Defendants are represented by the same counsel, and one Defendant

remains a party. Dkt. #12. The question of attorneys’ fees for all parties can be addressed

upon completion of the action.

The Court has authority to impose sanctions if it finds a plaintiff acted with bad faith

or “recklessness when combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment,

or an improper purpose.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2001). The

decision whether to sanction a party is within the discretion of the court. See id. at 993;

Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1480 (9th Cir. 1989).

The claims against the individual defendants were unavailable under the statutes

Plaintiff cited, but the Court cannot conclude, on the present record, that the showing for

sanctions has been made. Moreover, if Defendants are correct in their argument that they are

entitled to attorneys’ fees, an award of attorneys’ fees at the conclusion of this case will

appropriately sanction Plaintiff for the filing of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #7) is denied.

2. The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference by separate order.

DATED this 16th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01924-DGC Document 26 Filed 12/16/09 Page 2 of 2