Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01653/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01653-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

Debra Kane Revit, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

First Advantage Tax Consulting Services, 

LLC, 

Defendant.

No. CV-10-1653-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer for wrongful termination 

in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the Arizona Employment Protection Act 

(“AEPA”), A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(c)(i)-(ii). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was 

terminated for refusing to violate Arizona law or for reporting what she believed to be a 

violation of Arizona law by Defendant. Doc. 1-1. 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to 

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 23. The motion is fully briefed. 

Docs. 27, 31. For reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion.1

 Rule 15 makes clear that the Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when 

justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The policy in favor of leave to amend must 

not only be heeded by the Court, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), it must 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:10-cv-01653-GMS Document 34 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

be applied with extreme liberality, see Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 

244 F.3d 708, 880 (9th Cir. 2001). This liberality “is not dependent on whether the 

amendment will add causes of action or parties.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 

833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to add a common law claim for wrongful termination in 

violation of public policy, as established in Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, 

710 P.2d 1025 (Ariz. 1985). The proposed amendment would be futile as a matter of 

law, Defendant contends, because Wagenseller has been superseded by the AEPA. The 

Court cannot agree. 

 The Arizona Supreme Court has explicitly declined to answer the question 

whether a common law wrongful termination claim “may still be asserted independent of 

the AEPA.” Logan v. Forever Living Prods. Int’l, Inc., 52 P.3d 760, 764 (Ariz. 2002). 

Indeed, “[w]hether a common law tort for wrongful termination still exists after the 

AEPA is an open and much debated question in Arizona law.” Galati v. Am. W. Airlines, 

Inc., 69 P.3d 1011, 1015 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “Both Logan and Galati remain good 

law in Arizona and establish support for Plaintiff that, contrary to [Defendant’s] steadfast 

assertion otherwise, Plaintiff’s common law tort for wrongful termination is not 

foreclosed as a matter of law merely based upon the enactment of the AEPA.” Lombardi 

v. Copper Canyon Acad., LLC, No. 09-CV-8164-PCT-PGR, 2010 WL 3775408, at *8 

(D. Ariz. Sept. 21, 2010). 

 The Court recognizes that the proposed common law claim may be redundant of 

the statutory claim to the extent it is premised on retaliation for Plaintiff’s refusal to 

violate Arizona law or for reporting a violation by Defendant. See A.R.S. § 23-

1501(3)(c); Logan, 52 P.3d at 764 (finding it unnecessary to determine the viability of a 

common law claim given that the plaintiff’s claim existed under the statute). But the 

proposed claim also alleges that Plaintiff was terminated in violation of the public policy 

against dishonest, fraudulent, or negligent conduct and in favor of protecting Arizona 

Case 2:10-cv-01653-GMS Document 34 Filed 04/06/11 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

residents’ confidential personal information submitted to the government or others. Doc. 

23 at 10, ¶ 26. The Court cannot, on the present record, determine as a matter of law that 

the proposed amendment would be futile. 

 Plaintiff is advised, however, that “since the inception of the AEPA, common law 

wrongful discharge claims based upon public policy are limited, as the legislature now 

favors the comprehensive statutory scheme of the AEPA.” Lombardi, 2010 WL 

3775408, at *8 n.9. Plaintiff ultimately “bears the burden of establishing a prima facie 

case with authoritative support therefor.” Id.

 Defendant contends that the motion for leave to amend should be denied on the 

ground of undue delay. This Circuit has made clear that “‘undue delay by itself is 

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.’” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health 

Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 757, 

758 (9th Cir. 1999)); see DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187. Defendant does not assert 

prejudice or bad faith on the part of Plaintiff. 

 Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court will grant 

Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 23) is 

granted. 

 2. Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint (see Doc. 23 at 6-11) by 

April 15, 2011. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to reply (Doc. 29) is granted. 

 Dated this 6th day of April, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-01653-GMS Document 34 Filed 04/06/11 Page 3 of 3