Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00840/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00840-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward G. Lesofski, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Jarrod Lash, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-840 TUC DCB

ORDER

On October 3, 2012, the Court granted in part the Motion for Summary Judgment

filed by Defendant Arizona School of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (ASAOM) and

individually named Defendants associated with ASAOM. The Court ordered Plaintiff to

show cause why summary judgment should not be entered on the Defendants’ challenge that

he is not disabled as defined by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court

granted the Motion to Dismiss, with leave to amend, filed by Defendant McKenzie, the Chair

of the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. Finally, the Court

granted Plaintiff an extension of time to serve the Amended Complaint.

The Court has now reviewed the Plaintiff’s filing made in response to the OSC and

finds he has sufficiently supported his claim of disability to survive the ASAOM motion for

summary judgment. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint,

and finds it fails to identify the named Defendants in the caption of the case. Rules of

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (LRCiv), Rule

7.1(a)(3). The Plaintiff shall refile the Second Amended Complaint, nunc pro tunc. There

are no longer any unserved Defendants in this case.

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 77 Filed 11/20/12 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

On November 7, 2012, the ASAOM Defendants filed a Renewed Motion for

Summary Judgement. Defendants assert again that Plaintiff is not disabled. This time, the

Defendants submit evidence that Plaintiff either told them he was not disabled or only told

them that he was physically disabled. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in response

to the OSC reflects that there is a material issue of fact in dispute regarding the question of

Plaintiff’s disability, sufficient to dispute the contrary evidence presented in this “renewed”

motion. 

The remainder of the “renewed” motion for summary judgement is really a motion

to dismiss. Defendants argue that under any pleading standard, the Plaintiff fails to state a

claim. (Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment at 6-8.) A Motion to Dismiss

for failure to state a claim is properly urged pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defendants

filed an Answer on March 13, 2012. The Defendants may, however, seek a judgment on the

pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(c), but have not done this.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 73)

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall refile the Second Amended

Complaint to reflect the named Defendants in the caption.

DATED this 19th day of November, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 77 Filed 11/20/12 Page 2 of 2