Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03033/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03033-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights 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

1

 The Court will deny the request for oral argument because the parties have submitted

memoranda thoroughly discussing the issues and the Court concludes that oral argument will

not aid its decisional process. See Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d

1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999).

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Collegeville/Imagineering Ent., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3033 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a Motion for Leave

to Amend Complaint. Doc. #22. Defendants have filed a partial opposition to the motion

and Plaintiff has filed a reply. Docs. ##25, 31. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

will grant Plaintiff’s motion.1

Defendants oppose only the addition of class claims to Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Defendants make three arguments: (1) that Plaintiff never issued a reasonable cause finding

with respect to a retaliation class claim, (2) that Plaintiff failed to attempt to conciliate class

claims, and (3) that Plaintiff has engaged in undue delay and bad faith that will prejudice

Defendants. The Court will address each of these arguments separately. Before doing so,

however, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion to amend is timely under the Court’s Case

Case 2:05-cv-03033-DGC Document 34 Filed 07/13/06 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 - 2 -

Management Order (Doc. #20) and leave to amend is to be liberally granted. See Foman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

I. Reasonable Cause Determinations.

Although Plaintiff seeks to add class claims to its complaint, Plaintiff makes clear in

its reply memorandum that the class will consist of only two individuals – Ms. Limon and

Ms. Avalos – in addition to the original claimant, Ms. Honer. Plaintiff “does not seek relief

for retaliation on behalf of any other class members.” Doc. #31 at 4. 

Plaintiff made reasonable cause determinations with respect to the alleged retaliation

against Ms. Limon and Ms. Avalos. See id., Ex. E at 2, Ex. H at 2. Because the retaliation

class consists only of these individuals, and reasonable cause determinations were made with

respect to each of them, Defendants’ argument on this issue fails.

II. Conciliation.

Plaintiff has submitted evidence of its attempted conciliation efforts on behalf of

claimants Honer, Limon, and Avalos, as well as a class of women. Id., Exs. J, K, L, M, N,

and O. These documents show that settlement discussions were undertaken between Plaintiff

and Defendants concerning the claims of Honer, Limon, Avalos, and a class. The Court finds

these settlement efforts sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s conciliation obligation. 

III. Undue Delay, Bad Faith, and Prejudice.

As noted above, Plaintiff’s motion was filed within the time permitted by the Court’s

Case Management Order. The proposed amendment was also filed approximately one month

after conciliation efforts with respect to the claims of Limon, Avalos, and the class were

completed. The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff engaged in undue delay. 

Nor can the Court conclude that Plaintiff has engaged in bad faith. Defendants argue

that Plaintiff sought to amend the complaint only after Defendants rejected its settlement

demands and thus characterize the proposed amendment as retaliation for a refusal to settle.

It is not uncommon, however, for parties to amend complaints when settlement efforts fail.

The Court cannot conclude that such conduct constitutes bad faith. 

Case 2:05-cv-03033-DGC Document 34 Filed 07/13/06 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 - 3 -

Finally, Defendants claim that they have been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s delay.

Defendants argue that much evidence has been lost during Plaintiff’s investigation of these

claims since 2002. The Court notes, however, that Defendants have been aware of the

charges since 2002 and presumably could have taken steps to preserve evidence that might

otherwise have been lost. The Court also notes that the inadvertent erasure of one side of a

tape recording related only to Ms. Honer’s claim, not to claims added in the proposed

amendment. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that delay in seeking the amendment is

responsible for loss of the evidence that was contained on the tape.

Given the liberal standard for amendment of pleadings under Rule 15 and Plaintiff’s

timely motion to amend under the Court’s Case Management Order, the Court concludes that

amendment in this case should be permitted. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint (Doc. #22) is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the Amended Complaint

(Doc. #23).

DATED this 12th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03033-DGC Document 34 Filed 07/13/06 Page 3 of 3