Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02106/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02106-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cynthia A. Miller, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

George Massi, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2106-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The Court has before it "Defendants Massi, Hunt, Delong and Northern Arizona

Investment Group, LLC dba HOAMCO's ("HOAMCO") Partial Motion to Dismiss and

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Delong" ("Defendants' Motion")

(doc. 31), defendants' "Statement of Facts in Support of Defendant Delong's Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Delong Only" (doc. 32), plaintiffs' response (doc.

34), and defendants' reply (doc. 35). 

I.

Defendants move for partial dismissal of plaintiffs' Amended Complaint pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs "withdraw" several claims, and we therefore grant defendants'

partial motion to dismiss Counts Nine and Fifteen against defendants Massi, Hunt, Delong

and HOAMCO. See Response at 5-6. Plaintiffs also argue that because several causes of

action were not alleged against certain defendants, the motion to dismiss those claims should

Case 3:06-cv-02106-FJM Document 39 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

be denied. See, e.g., Response at 4. However, by so stating, plaintiffs give us reason to

grant, not deny, the relevant parts of defendants' motion. Therefore, we also dismiss Counts

Three, Four, Five, Six, Ten, Eleven and Twelve against defendant Massi, see id. at 5-8, and

Counts One through Six, and Counts Ten, Thirteen and Fourteen against defendants Hunt

and Delong, see id. at 4-6. 

 Next, we address the arguments for dismissal not rendered moot by plaintiffs'

concessions. A complaint should only be dismissed if "it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 102 (1957). Therefore, we must accept

all of plaintiffs' material factual allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in

plaintiffs' favor. Anderson v. Clow (In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig.), 89 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th

Cir. 1996). 

Additionally, a complaint need not prove all elements of a claim, but rather must

simply set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Its averments should " ' sufficiently establish a basis for

judgment against the defendant, ' " and unlikelihood of success "does not, by itself, justify

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)." AlliedSignal, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 182 F.3d 692, 696,

696 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P.'s "simplified notice

pleading standard relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define

disputed facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S. Ct. 992, 998 (2002). 

Defendants move for dismissal of plaintiffs' Tenth Claim, brought against defendant

HOAMCO, arguing that (1) negligence per se does not apply to common law theories and

(2) the Arizona Employment Protection Act precludes a negligence per se claim based on

violations of Arizona employment discrimination laws. Defendants' Motion at 7. Plaintiffs

concede that their negligence per se claim cannot be based on violations of common law or

Arizona laws. See Response at 8-9. However, they contend that defendant HOAMCO's

Title VII violation gives rise to a negligence per se claim. See id. Defendants reply that

Case 3:06-cv-02106-FJM Document 39 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

allowing a remedy in tort for a violation of a federal statute would be inconsistent "with the

spirit of the law in Arizona and should not be allowed." Reply at 4.

"[W]henever a valid statute or regulation provides that a certain thing must or must

not be done, if a failure to comply with such regulation is a proximate cause of injury to

another, such failure is actual negligence per se." Hall v. Mertz, 480 P.2d 361, 363 (App.

1971). In Arizona, even a violation of a federal statute will support a negligence per se

claim. Martin v. Schroeder, 209 Ariz. 531, 537, 105 P.3d 577, 583 (App. 2005). Negligence

per se allows a court to find civil liability in a statute that does not already provide for it. See

Prosser & Keeton on The Law of Torts § 36, at 220-21 (5th ed. 1984). Title VII provides

ample civil liability for those in violation of its statutory scheme. Therefore, we will not

infer additional civil liability where none is needed, and grant defendants' motion to dismiss

Count Ten. 

Defendants also move for dismissal of counts Sixteen, Seventeen and Eighteen

arguing that those counts are not legal claims, but "related to damages." Defendants' Motion

at 5. Defendants' statement that these counts "are not legal claims" does not on its own give

us reason to dismiss. We will dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. if the relief

plaintiffs request is unavailable under the facts alleged by the Amended Complaint.

Therefore, we deny this ground for dismissal.

II. 

Defendants move for partial summary judgment as to Counts Seven and Eight brought

against defendant Delong, contending that pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.,

"[p]laintiffs have presented no allegation against Mr. Delong individually that states any

claim upon which relief can be granted." Defendants' Motion at 8. However, in so arguing,

defendants ask us to consider the statement of facts and exhibit they have filed concurrently

with their motion. Id. As such, defendants do not move for summary judgment, but move

for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and ask us to consider both their statement of facts

and exhibit in our ruling on that motion. Therefore, we must first address whether

defendants' 12(b)(6) motion should be converted into a motion for summary judgment. 

Case 3:06-cv-02106-FJM Document 39 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

"Generally, the scope of review on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is

limited to the contents of the complaint." Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir.

2005). However, " ' when [the] plaintiff fails to introduce a pertinent document as part of his

pleading, [the] defendant may introduce the exhibit as part of his motion attacking the

pleading,' " so long as certain conditions are met. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th

Cir. 1994) (alteration in original) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Galbraith

v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002). A court may consider such

evidence if "(1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the

plaintiff's claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the

12(b)(6) motion." Marder, 450 F.3d at 448. A complaint "refers" to a document if it is

specifically mentioned in the complaint. See Branch, 14 F.3d at 453. Considering such

documents does not convert a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary

judgment because the documents are not outside the complaint. Id. at 453-54. A court has

discretion to consider matters submitted as exhibits even if they are outside the complaint so

long as the motion for dismissal is converted into a motion for summary judgment. See

Cunningham v. Rothery (In re Rothery), 143 F.3d 546, 549 (9th Cir. 1998).

Here, neither document filed concurrently with defendants' motion is referred to in the

complaint. Therefore, if we consider the documents, we must convert defendants' 12(b)(6)

motion into a motion for summary judgment. However, we decline to do so. The parties

have had, as of this date, limited time in which to conduct discovery. The arguments

defendants' statement of facts and exhibit raise are best addressed by way of motions for

summary judgment. The summary judgment deadlines will provide the parties with ample

opportunity to discover and present to the court all material rendered relevant by the exhibits.

Having declined to convert this portion of defendants' motion into a motion for

summary judgment, we turn to defendants' 12(b)(6) arguments for dismissal of Counts Seven

and Eight as to defendant Delong. Without the benefit of the documents defendants filed

with their motion, their arguments for dismissal rest on the factual assertion that "Plaintiffs

have no independent facts that Mr. Delong terminated Plaintiffs." Defendants' Motion at 8.

Case 3:06-cv-02106-FJM Document 39 Filed 03/16/07 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

We accept as true plaintiffs' allegation that Delong terminated plaintiffs, see Amended

Complaint at 12-13, and deny this ground for dismissal.

Therefore, it is ORDERED GRANTING defendants' partial motion to dismiss

Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve and Fifteen against defendant

Massi; Counts One through Six, and Counts Nine, Ten, Thirteen, Fourteen and Fifteen

against defendants Hunt and Delong, and Counts Nine, Ten and Fifteen against defendant

HOAMCO (doc. 31). It is further ORDERED DENYING defendants' partial motion to

dismiss Counts Sixteen, Seventeen and Eighteen (doc. 31). Finally, it is ORDERED

DENYING defendants' partial motion to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight against defendant

Delong (doc. 31). 

As a result, the following claims remain against the following defendants: Counts

One, Two, Seven, Eight, Thirteen, Fourteen, Sixteen, Seventeen and Eighteen as to defendant

Massi; Counts Seven, Eight, Eleven, Twelve, Sixteen, Seventeen and Eighteen as to

defendant Hunt; Counts Seven, Eight, Eleven, Twelve, Sixteen, Seventeen and Eighteen as

to defendant Delong, and Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Eleven,

Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Sixteen, Seventeen and Eighteen as to defendant HOAMCO. 

DATED this 16th day of March, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-02106-FJM Document 39 Filed 03/16/07 Page 5 of 5