Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01710/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01710-0/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

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Cannon & Wendt Electric Co., Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1710-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (Title VII), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, alleging unlawful employment

practices and to provide appropriate relief to one Victor Cortez (Dkt. 1). Defendant has filed

an Answer and Counterclaim (Dkt. 4). 

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim with prejudice for failure to

state a claim for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 6), Defendant has filed a Response

(Dkt. 9), and Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Dkt. 13). Defendant has filed a separate Motion to

Dismiss the Counterclaim without prejudice (Dkt. 10) and Plaintiff has filed a Response

(Dkt. 14). Defendant has not filed a reply. 

A complaint generally must satisfy only the minimal notice pleading requirements of

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), that is, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” See Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). The

complaint must allege sufficient facts to show that the cause of action is plausible. Bell

Case 2:07-cv-01710-EHC Document 31 Filed 08/04/08 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, __U.S.__, 127 S.Ct. 1955,1965-1966 (2007). In considering

a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all allegations of material fact

as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the [plaintiff]. Hearns v. Terhune,

413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). Dismissal can be based on “lack of a cognizable legal

theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

Defendant asserts in its Counterclaim that the filing of this lawsuit constitutes

harassment, that Plaintiff is liable for sanctions for violating its own regulations, and that

Defendant has been damaged in the business community (“good will”) and for the expenses

of defending “this frivolous lawsuit” (Dkt. 4 - Counterclaim ¶¶ 8-10). Plaintiff moves to

dismiss the Counterclaim on grounds that the Counterclaim has no legal basis and is

frivolous; that sovereign immunity has not been waived regarding a suit against the EEOC

as Plaintiff; and, Title VII does not provide a cause of action against the EEOC to challenge

its investigation and processing of a charge. Defendant argues in its Response that the

Counterclaim seeks damages to offset any damages awarded to Plaintiff (Dkt. 9 at 2). 

In an employment discrimination case, the defendant employer may not counterclaim

based on tort claims. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. First National Bank of

Jackson, 614 F.2d 1004, 1006 (5th Cir. 1980). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6) is granted. Defendant’s

Counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10) is

denied as moot.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01710-EHC Document 31 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 2