Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01369/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01369-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Debra Jilka, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

DriveTime Automotive Group aka Ugly

Duckling Corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-1369-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Plaintiff pro se has filed a motion for leave to supplement the complaint in which

Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 103). Plaintiff has submitted a

copy of her proposed amended complaint. Defendant has filed a response opposing the

motion. (Doc. 105).

 Leave to file an amended pleading under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) "shall be freely given

when justice so requires" and this policy "'is to be applied with extreme liberality.'" Owens

v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)(quoting Morongo

Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). Inferences should

be drawn "in favor of granting the motion" to amend. Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc.,

170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court has considered Plaintiff's motion in the context

of the relevant factors of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or

futility. Owens, 244 F.3d at 712.

Case 2:03-cv-01369-MHM Document 120 Filed 10/13/05 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 -

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to assert claims for obstruction of justice

under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, a federal criminal statute. (See counts one through five, nine and

ten of the proposed amended complaint). However, § 1512 provides no private cause of

action for damages in civil actions. See Gipson v. Callahan, 18 F. Supp. 2d 662, 668

(W.D.Tex. 1997)(no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1512); Boisjoly v. Morton

Thiokol, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 795, 806 (D. Utah 1988)(same).

Plaintiff also seeks to add a claim for "retaliatory practice." (See count six of the

proposed amended complaint). Plaintiff contends that her employment was terminated the

day after she sent an e-mail to Human Resources making a charge concerning unlawful

employment practices. Plaintiff has attached to her proposed amended complaint a copy of

the e-mail. Plaintiff further alleges that her "terminating Manager" has stated in deposition

that Plaintiff's employment was terminated as a result of this e-mail. Plaintiff has attached

a transcript page of the referenced deposition in support of her claim. However, as

Defendant has pointed out, in the e-mail Plaintiff appears to be complaining that her

supervisor discussed with her employment matters not related to Plaintiff, that is, "several

people" who were "written up last week for attendance, lates, etc." The testimony reflected

on the attached deposition page does not indicate that Plaintiff's employment was terminated

as a result of this e-mail.

Finally, Plaintiff has asserted claims that Defendant is in violation of the Equal Pay

Act of 1963 and for "discrimination in the workplace" based on Defendant's alleged payment

of higher wages to a certain identified employee while paying substantially less to all other

similarly situated persons. (See counts seven and eight of the proposed amended complaint).

Plaintiff has not asserted that she has suffered any injury as a result of Defendant's alleged

action. See Thinket Ink Information Resources, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d

1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)(a plaintiff must have a personal stake in the outcome; a plaintiff

must show she has suffered "injury in fact" that is concrete and particularized, etc.).

Liberally construing Plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint, it appears that

the new claims set forth in the proposed amended complaint are subject to dismissal and thus

Case 2:03-cv-01369-MHM Document 120 Filed 10/13/05 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 -

are futile. Moreover, as Defendant has noted, the discovery deadline was extended in this

case. Discovery closed on June 27, 2005. Any amendment to the complaint at this late date

would cause undue delay and resulting prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement the complaint in

which Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 103) is denied.

 DATED this 12th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-01369-MHM Document 120 Filed 10/13/05 Page 3 of 3