Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01726/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01726-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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 All subsequent references to “Rules” refer to the Federal 1

Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD PRONECHEN, )

) 2:06-CV-1726-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

SECRETARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF )

HOMELAND SECURITY, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Defendant moves under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, which alleges 1

that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS” or “Defendant”)

wrongly dismissed his age discrimination administrative complaint as

untimely. Plaintiff opposes the motion and moves for leave to amend

the Complaint.

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 37 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff applied for employment with the Federal Protective 2

Service, which later became part of DHS. (Compl. 

¶ 3.)

2

PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, who is over 40 years of age, applied for

employment with DHS in 2003, but was notified on January 14, 2004, 2

that he did not receive the job. (Compl. ¶ 4.) On February 27, 2004,

a DHS official made statements from which Plaintiff concluded that his

age was a motivating factor in the decision not to hire him. (Id. 

¶ 5.) On March 30, 2004, Plaintiff spoke with an Equal Employment

Opportunity (“EEO”) counselor concerning DHS’s decision not to hire

him. (Id. ¶ 6.) He subsequently filed an administrative complaint

with DHS, which DHS rejected as untimely on the basis that Plaintiff

did not speak with the EEO counselor within 45 days after Plaintiff’s

claim accrued on January 14, 2004. (Id.) Plaintiff appealed the DHS

decision to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”),

which affirmed the DHS dismissal decision. (Id. ¶ 7.) 

Plaintiff alleges a declaratory relief claim, requesting (1)

“[t]hat this Court declare that [P]laintiff’s administrative

complaint was improperly dismissed as untimely,” and (2) “[t]hat this

Court remand [P]laintiff’s claim to the agency with instructions to

process his administrative complaint as timely.”

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 37 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 5
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

The Rule 12(b)(6) standards are well known and need not be 3

repeated. Although Defendant moves, in the alternative, to dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), the essence of Defendant’s

motion is that Plaintiff has not pleaded a cognizable federal claim.

Since “[a]ny non-frivolous assertion of a federal claim suffices to

establish federal question jurisdiction, even if that claim is later

dismissed on the merits,” Defendant’s motion is properly decided under

Rule 12(b)(6). See Cement Masons Health & Welfare Trust Fund for N.

Cal. v. Stone, 197 F.3d 1003, 1007-08 (9th Cir. 1999) (reversing

district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) where plaintiff’s federal

claim was not cognizable under the federal statute, and holding that

claim should have been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)).

3

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim3

Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, arguing

Plaintiff’s claim that DHS improperly dismissed his administrative

complaint is not cognizable under the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act (“ADEA”). (Def.’s Mot. at 5:24-8:15.) Defendant argues the ADEA

only authorizes Plaintiff to bring a civil action for a substantive

age discrimination claim in federal district court. (Id.) Plaintiff

counters that his declaratory relief claim is cognizable under the

ADEA. The ADEA provides: “Any person aggrieved [by age

discrimination] may bring a civil action in any Federal district court

of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will

effectuate the purposes of this chapter.” 29 U.S.C. § 633a(c).

Plaintiff has not pled a substantive age discrimination

claim; rather, he seeks declaratory relief supporting his position on

when his claim accrued and a remand to the agency of his

administrative complaint should that declaration issue. (Compl. at

3:21-26.) Even assuming, arguendo, that the declaratory relief

Plaintiff seeks in his Complaint is appropriate under the ADEA,

because of material disputed factual issues that preclude a pretrial

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 37 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 5
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

ruling on the accrual issue (see Order filed April 23, 2007), which

factual disputes are intertwined with Plaintiff’s unpled substantive

age discrimination claim, declaratory relief is not appropriate. 

“[I]n evaluating a claim for . . . declaratory relief courts must

necessarily consider the adequacy of any remedy at law before awarding

equitable relief . . . .” Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v.

Hardin, 223 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2000). Since Plaintiff has not

shown the inadequacy of a remedy at law, his present declaratory

relief claim is dismissed.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his Complaint. (Pls.’ Mot.

for Leave to Am. at 3:1-4:17; Pl.’s Opp’n at 12:14-13:7.) Although

the right to amend is not preserved in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order,

Plaintiff stated in the Joint Status Report: “It may be that the

proper response to Defendant’s [] motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction will be a motion by Plaintiff to amend his complaint;

Plaintiff requests that this Court’s Order provide for that.” (Joint

Status Report at 2:4-9, 4:3-7.) Since this anticipated amendment

language was overlooked when the Rule 16 Scheduling Order was

prepared, Plaintiff request for leave to amend is granted.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 37 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is dismissed. 

Plaintiff is granted ten days leave from the date on which this order

is filed to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 37 Filed 03/04/08 Page 5 of 5