Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01217/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01217-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

Julio Rodriguez,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kentucky Fried Chicken,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1217-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises upon the Court’s review of the file and pro se Plaintiff’s

timely-filed Second Amended Complaint, filed in an effort to comply with both the Court’s

July 30, 2008 order and, among others, Rule 8(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(docket # 7) Plaintiff has consented in writing to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (docket # 4) 

The Second Amended Complaint repeats Plaintiff’s failures of his prior two

Complaints of not alleging the statutory basis for the Court’s limited jurisdiction. The pro

se Plaintiff’s reference, however, to “Title VII, the ADA and the ADEA,” all Congressional

statutes, under the heading “JURISDICTION” makes clear that Plaintiff is invoking federalquestion jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and is not raising claims alleging

substantive violations of these specific statutes. (docket # 7 at 1)

The Court concludes that upon a fair reading of the Second Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts for purposes of Rule 8(a), FED.R.CIV.P., to

warrant service of process and proceeding further with Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant

violated the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq, and that Plaintiff

Case 2:08-cv-01217-LOA Document 8 Filed 09/04/08 Page 1 of 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

1

 See docket # 2. Plaintiff may also find the consent/election form on the District’s

web site, click on “Local Rules” at the top of the page, then click on “Forms” on the left side

of the page and then click on and print the appropriate form. Consent/election forms are not

to be e-filed. Consent/election forms are to be filed in paper form with the Clerk's Office.

ECF Policies and Procedure Manual, II, ¶ M at p.19.

- 2 -

was wrongfully terminated from his employment and suffered other adverse employment

actions in retaliation for exercising his FMLA rights. Moreover, the Second Amended

Complaint’s demand sets forth the specific relief Plaintiff seeks.

“Qualifying employees are guaranteed 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year by

the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.” Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, 535 U.S.

81, 84 (2002). “The FMLA creates two related substantive rights for employees. First, an

employee has the right to take a leave of absence from work for personal medical reasons,

to care for a newborn baby, or to care for family members with serious illnesses.” Foraker

v. Apollo Group, Inc., 427 F.Supp.2d 936, 940 (D. Ariz. 2006) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2612).

“Second, an employee who takes FMLA leave has the right to return to his or her original

position or to a position equivalent in benefits, pay, and conditions of employment.” Id.

(citing 29 U.S.C. § 2614). Additionally, to establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation,

an employee need only establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the employee

took FMLA-protected leave, (2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action, and

(3) the adverse employment action was causally related to the employee’s FMLA leave. Id.

at 942 (citing Bachelder v. America West Airlines, 259 F.3d 1112, 1124 (9th Cir. 2001)

(holding that to prevail on a claim under § 2615(a)(1), an employee need only prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that the employee’s taking of FMLA-protected leave

constituted a negative factor in the decision to terminate the employee).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall properly serve the Summons, the Second

Amended Complaint, this Order and the magistrate-judge consent form1

 on Defendant

Kentucky Fried Chicken within 90 days of today’s date, i.e., on or before December 4,

Case 2:08-cv-01217-LOA Document 8 Filed 09/04/08 Page 2 of 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

2

 Rule 4(m), FED.R.CIV.P., provides as follows:

(m) Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after

the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the

plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or

order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows

good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an

appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign

country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).

 Rule 4(m), FED.R.CIV.P.

- 3 -

2008. See, Rule 4(m), FED.R.CIV.P. Plaintiff's failure to timely serve the aforesaid

documents upon Defendant may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit without prejudice

absent good cause shown. Although district courts have broad discretion to extend time for

service under Rule 4(m), FED.R.CIV.P.,2

 “no court has ruled that the discretion is limitless.”

Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated this 3rd day of September, 2008. 

 

 

Case 2:08-cv-01217-LOA Document 8 Filed 09/04/08 Page 3 of 3