Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02487/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02487-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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 

Mirisa Ajanovic, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

O.F.F. Enterprises, Ltd., 

Defendant.

No. CV10-2487-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Mirisa Ajanovic commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint 

against Defendant on November 17, 2010. Doc. 1. The original complaint was 

dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on February 25, 2011. 

Doc. 4. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 28, 2011. Doc. 5. 

 Defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. 10. The motion is fully briefed. Docs. 10, 12, 14. On 

January 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a surreply to the motion to dismiss. Doc. 15. Defendant 

moves to strike the surreply. Doc. 16. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant 

the motion to dismiss and deny the motion to strike. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) where the plaintiff fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When reviewing a 

complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact “are taken as true and 

construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Smith v. Jackson, 84 

Case 2:10-cv-02487-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1996). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations “are 

not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). 

To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 

570 (2007). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it 

asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 129 

S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do 

not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint 

has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 1950 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 

 A court should apply less stringent pleading standards to pro se plaintiffs, such 

that inartful pleadings are still considered by the court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972); Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Pro se

complaints are to be construed liberally and ‘may be dismissed for failure to state a claim 

only where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support 

of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” (citations omitted)). 

II. Motion to Dismiss. 

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. The amended complaint is inconsistent as 

to the exact date of her termination. Plaintiff alleges that her last day of service was on 

November 1, 2006, but that her date of discharge was on January 11, 2006. Doc. 5, at 1. 

Attachments to the amended complaint indicate that her date of discharge was 

November 15, 2006. Doc. 5, at 5. 

 The amended complaint does not clearly state the basis for Plaintiff’s claim 

against Defendant. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff is likely alleging that 

her employment was terminated based on a disability, in violation of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The amended complaint refers to Plaintiff’s termination by 

Defendant and her resulting loss of income. Doc. 5, at 2 (“[T]he employe[r] is 

[responsible] for [a]ll the y[e]ars that [I] wasn’t ab[le] to h[e]lp financial[l]y.”). The 

Case 2:10-cv-02487-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

amended complaint also references “discrimination” and “discharge[e] for having past 

record about disability.” Id. 

 As a prerequisite to filing a suit under the ADA in this Court, Plaintiff must first 

file a charge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(“EEOC”) within 180 days of the date of the alleged discrimination, or within 300 days if 

the charge is initially filed with a designated state or local fair employment practice 

agency. Plaintiff may only file a suit in this Court after receiving a right-to-sue letter 

from the EEOC. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e), (f); see also

O’Loghlin v. County of Orange, 229 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 2000) (“As a prerequisite to 

suit, the ADA and Title VII both require the filing of a charge and the issuance of a rightto-sue letter.”). Plaintiff does not allege that she has met these requirements. Defendant 

claims that, to its knowledge, Plaintiff has not in fact filed the required charge with the 

EEOC. Doc. 10, at 2. 

 An EEOC charge that is filed outside of the statutory time limits may be permitted 

if Plaintiff can establish equitable tolling or estoppel. See, e.g., Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 

202 F.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In a Title VII suit, failure to file an EEOC charge 

within the prescribed 300-day period is not a jurisdictional bar, but it is treated as a 

violation of a statute of limitations, complete with whatever defenses are available to 

such a violation, such as equitable tolling and estoppel.”). The Court notes that Plaintiff 

filed her original complaint in November 2010, four years after Defendant terminated her 

employment. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would establish equitable tolling or 

estoppel. 

 Based on these deficiencies in the amended complaint, the Court concludes that 

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

III. Motion to Strike. 

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s surreply (Doc. 15) to the motion to dismiss. 

Because the Court will grant the motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s surreply has no bearing 

on the outcome of that motion, the motion to strike (Doc. 16) will be denied as moot. 

Case 2:10-cv-02487-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

IV. Leave to Amend. 

The Court should freely give leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. In this Circuit, a pro se litigant must be given leave to amend “unless 

it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); see 

Waters v. Young, 100 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996). 

 If the Court is correct in concluding that Plaintiff alleges a violation of the ADA 

and has not first filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC, it appears that the 

deficiencies in her amended complaint cannot be cured by further amendment. The 

Court, however, recognizes the possibility that Plaintiff may be able to allege facts that 

establish equitable tolling or estoppel, or that Plaintiff is alleging a cause of action other 

than employment discrimination. 

 In the interest of justice, the Court will dismiss the amended complaint without 

prejudice and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff shall have until 

March 9, 2012 to file a second amended complaint. This will be Plaintiff’s final 

opportunity to amend her complaint. 

 For purposes of the second amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires, in pertinent part: 

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short 

and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction 

depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the 

pleader seeks. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

 Plaintiff is further advised that she must become familiar with, and follow, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona (“Local Rules”). See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 

1986) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other 

Case 2:10-cv-02487-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

litigants.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet 

website: www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure may be obtained in the Clerk’s Office is also available online at the Court’s 

Internet website: www.azd.uscourts.gov (follow the hyperlink titled “Rules/General 

Orders”). If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action, or fails to comply with the rules or any 

Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th 

Cir. 1992). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is granted. 

 2. The motion to strike (Doc. 16) is denied as moot. 

 3. The amended complaint (Doc. 5) is dismissed without prejudice for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 4. Plaintiff shall have until March 9, 2012 to file, consistent with this order, a 

second amended complaint. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action without 

further order of the Court if Plaintiff fails to meet this deadline. 

 Dated this 21st day of February, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-02487-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 5