Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00606/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00606-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

Ester Fuchs, 

Plaintiff,

v.

University of Arizona,

Defendant. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 10-606 TUC DCB

ORDER

The Court dismissed this action on December 20, 2010, because the Plaintiff failed

to file a Response to a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant on October 10, 2010. (Doc.

11: Order; Doc. 12: Judgment.) On January 21, 2011, she filed a Motion for Reconsideration

and requests that her case be reinstated. She complains that she did not receive a copy of the

Motion to Dismiss and did not receive a copy of a Court Order sent on October 28, 2010,

informing her that she needed to file a Response or, pursuant to Rule 7.21(i) of the Local

Rules of Civil Procedure, the matter would be summarily dismissed against her. (Doc. 4:

Order.)

When the Court dismissed the action, it was aware that she had not received its

Order informing her to file a Response or it would summarily grant the Motion to Dismiss,

pursuant to Local Rule 7.21(i), because that Order was returned to the Court as undeliverable

and “unable to forward.” (Doc. 7.) Thereafter, an Order issued reassigning the case from

the Magistrate Judge to this Court (doc. 9), and this Court issued the December 20, 2010,

Order dismissing the action and entering Judgment against her. In her Motion to Reconsider,

Plaintiff alleges that the only Order she has ever received from the Court was this Order of

reassignment, which issued after she failed to appear at a hearing set for her to show cause

Case 4:10-cv-00606-DCB Document 14 Filed 01/26/11 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

why the case should not be dismissed against her for failing to file the requisite forms to

consent to the authority of the magistrate judge. (Doc. 5: Order to Show Cause; Doc. 9:

Order of Reassignment.)

Plaintiff informs the Court that she is not in violation of Local Rule 83.3(d), which

requires her to file a notice of a change of address no later than 14 days before the effective

date of the change because her address has not changed; it remains 3529 Camino la Jicarrilla,

Tucson AZ, 85712. The Court has checked the service documentation for all the Orders and

the Certification of Service for the Motion to Dismiss. Every Order and the Motion to

Dismiss were sent to her at this address. According to her, she received the Order of

reassignment and the Order and Judgment dismissing the action, but she did not receive the

Motion to Dismiss, the Court’s Orders informing her of her obligation to file a Response, and

the Order setting the hearing regarding the magistrate judge assignment. Regardless of

whether her attestations are true or not regarding her receipt of these respective documents,

notice has been properly provided to her by both the Court and the Defendants. There is

nothing more either can do beyond mailing documents to the address she provided, which

has been done in every instance. For this reason, the Court will not reconsider dismissal of

the action.

More important, the Court will not reconsider dismissal of the case because it was

granted on the merits. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United

States Constitution because the Arizona Board of Regents is considered an arm of the state.

Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345, 1349 (1981); Seminole Tribe of Fla.

v. Forida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) did not

abrogate the States’ immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for Title I claims of disability

discrimination in employment. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531

U.S. 356, 360-61 (2001). No amendment to her Complaint can cure these defects and

Case 4:10-cv-00606-DCB Document 14 Filed 01/26/11 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

reinstatement of the action would be pointless. For this reason, the Court will not reconsider

dismissal of the action.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration and Request for

Reinstatement (doc. 13) is DENIED.

DATED this 25th day of January, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00606-DCB Document 14 Filed 01/26/11 Page 3 of 3