Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03613/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03613-0/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

1

We note that although plaintiff styles his response as including a "counter motion to

continue the case to be minimally be [sic] heard in front of a jury of his peers in court" (doc.

7), plaintiff is simply responding to defendant's motion to dismiss the case. He is not

asserting a separate motion. Accordingly, the docket clerk has been instructed to remove

both items listed as number 8 from the docket. 

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dennis Kennedy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Honeywell Aerospace, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3613-PHX-FJM

ORDER

This court has before it defendant's motion to dismiss or alternatively for a more

definite statement (doc. 5), plaintiff's response and motion to continue the case (doc. 7),1

defendant's reply (doc. 9), and defendant's response to the motion to continue (doc. 11). Also

before us are two motions by plaintiff for immediate reinstatement of his medical coverage

and a request for a hearing on the matter (docs. 12, 14), and defendant's Response (doc. 13).

Defendant sought to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.,

or alternatively for an order requiring plaintiff to provide a more definite statement.

Defendant contends that plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth any cognizable legal theory or

Case 2:05-cv-03613-FJM Document 16 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

sufficient facts to support any such theory. Moreover, defendant argues that plaintiff's

complaint is wholly unintelligible, and therefore defendant is unable to provide a responsive

pleading. 

Rule 12(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., permits a motion for a more definite statement where the

complaint is "so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a

responsive pleading." We agree that certain claims in the complaint lack sufficient clarity

to allow a responsive pleading. Specifically, in Count III plaintiff refers to a violation of the

Family Medical Leave Act, but fails to set forth any legal or factual basis to support such

claim. Although plaintiff attempts to address this deficiency in his response to the motion

to dismiss, the response is more incomprehensible than the original complaint. We refer

plaintiff to Rule 8(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., where a party is directed to set forth "a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A complaint

should not contain "narrative ramblings," but instead should attempt to "link[] factual

allegations to actual legal claims." See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1175-76 (9th Cir.

1996).

It is arguable that Count VI asserts a defamation claim; however, plaintiff fails to

describe the nature of the "derogatory information" or to allege that it was false, a necessary

element in a defamation claim. 

The allegations of fraud in Counts V and VII are wholly lacking in the particularity

required by Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Without additional clarification, these claims are

subject to dismissal.

Count IV fails to set forth any facts that could establish a cognizable claim under any

legal theory. Because a more definite statement with respect to this claim would be futile,

we grant defendant's motion to dismiss Count IV pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.

Although lacking in clarity, we conclude that the other claims contained in plaintiff's

complaint are sufficiently pled to allow a responsive pleading. Count I appears to allege a

claim for wrongful termination; Count II, a "whistleblowers" claim, under either state or

federal law; and Count III, a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Our

Case 2:05-cv-03613-FJM Document 16 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

conclusion that these claims are sufficiently pled should in no way be construed as a

favorable evaluation of the claims. On the contrary, as pled, these claims present serious

facial defects. In particular, plaintiff will have to overcome the challenge that Counts I and

II are barred by the one-year statute of limitations. See A.R.S. §12-541(3). Moreover,

plaintiff alleges a violation of the ADA in Count III, but fails to establish that he has

exhausted the administrative remedies required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. If plaintiff is unable

to establish exhaustion of administrative remedies and possible tolling of the statute of

limitations, these claims will be subject to dismissal. 

Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint and correct any

deficiencies within 30 days from the date of this order. This is without prejudice to the right

of defendant to refile a motion to dismiss once plaintiff has submitted an amended complaint.

Plaintiff also filed two motions seeking the immediate reinstatement of his medical

coverage and a request for a hearing on the matter (docs. 12, 14). However, reinstatement

of the medical coverage requires analysis of the same issues presented in the complaint.

Plaintiff has failed to set forth any legal basis to permit an immediate remedy. 

Plaintiff is advised to seek the advice of counsel. If he cannot find a lawyer, plaintiff

may wish to contact the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association

at 602-257-4434. Without a lawyer, plaintiff runs the risk of violating the rules and having

judgment entered against him. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING defendant's alternative motion for

a more definite statement (doc. 5). Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to

file an amended complaint which complies in all respects with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendant's motion to dismiss Count

IV (doc. 5). 

Case 2:05-cv-03613-FJM Document 16 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motions for immediate

reinstatement of his medical coverage and request for a hearing on the matter (docs. 12, 14).

DATED this 16th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03613-FJM Document 16 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 4