Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01148/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01148-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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 

James Eagle, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bill Alexander Automotive Center, Inc., 

Defendant.

No. CV11-1148-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Defendant Bill Alexander Automotive Center, Inc. filed a Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment on October 12, 2011. (Doc. 21). Defendant seeks judgment on 

Plaintiff James Eagle’s claim for a hostile work environment under the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Defendant argues the Court lacks 

jurisdiction over the hostile work environment claim because Plaintiff’s EEOC charge 

does not mention harassment/hostile work environment. 

 The Court does not need to decide whether Plaintiff exhausted a claim for 

harassment/hostile work environment under the ADEA in his administrative charge 

because Plaintiff concedes in his Response to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 

that he is not attempting to state a separate, stand-alone ADEA claim for hostile work 

environment. (Doc. 31, p. 2 “Mr. Eagle is not asserting a separate claim for a hostile 

work environment based upon his age, sixty-seven.”). The Court therefore grants partial 

summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim for harassment/hostile work 

environment under the ADEA, to the extent Plaintiff even attempted to allege such a 

separate claim. Plaintiff’s claim for discrimination in violation of the AEDA remains. 

 In its Reply, Defendant asks the Court to strike paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, F 

Case 2:11-cv-01148-JAT Document 56 Filed 06/05/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

and G of the Complaint. The Court will deny this request because Defendant has not 

articulated a legal basis for striking those sections of the Complaint, and it appears the 

time for filing a motion to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) has 

passed because Defendant already has answered the Complaint. F.R.Civ.P. 

12(f)(2)(Party must file a motion to strike “either before responding to the pleading or, if 

a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.”). 

Moreover, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that any age-related comments or behavior by 

Defendant could be relevant to Plaintiff’s age-discrimination claim. 

 Also in the Reply, Defendant asks the Court to award it attorneys’ fees for having 

to brief the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court will deny this request as 

well because Defendant again does not articulate a legal basis for its request. This denial 

is without prejudice to Defendant filing a properly supported motion for fees. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 21). The Court enters judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff’s ADEA 

claim for hostile work environment to the extent Plaintiff attempted to allege a separate 

claim for harassment/hostile work environment under the ADEA. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying Defendant’s request to strike certain 

paragraphs from the Complaint. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying without prejudice Defendant’s request 

for attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 5th day of June, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01148-JAT Document 56 Filed 06/05/12 Page 2 of 2