Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02285/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02285-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Terry Fowler,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Honeywell International, Inc.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2285-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Honeywell International, Inc.'s Motion to

Dismiss (Dkt. 4). Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. Although not pending, the Court will also address sua sponte

Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's original Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa

County on August 22, 2006 and alleged a breach of contract for failure to rehire. The case

was removed to this Court on September 22, 2006 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b).

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on September 28, 2006. After Plaintiff missed

the deadline for filing a response, the Court issued a Warning Notice on November 8, 2006.

(Dkt. 6). The Warning Notice reminded Plaintiff of his obligations under Local Rule 7.2 and

informed him of the potential consequences for failing to respond. On November 29, 2006,

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that asserts new claims for retaliation, age

Case 2:06-cv-02285-SMM Document 12 Filed 02/20/07 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 -

discrimination and sex discrimination. (Dkt. 7). Notably, the Amended Complaint contains

no claims for breach of contract. Plaintiff has also filed a Supplement to the Amended

Complaint, which requests, among other things, the Court to appoint an attorney for Plaintiff.

(Dkt. 9). The Court will address Defendant's motion as well as Plaintiff's request for the

appointment of counsel.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure only if "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-

46 (1957); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). When

deciding a Motion to Dismiss, all allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as

true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. W. Mining Council v. Watt,

643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

A court may dismiss a claim either because it lacks “a cognizable legal theory” or

because it fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. SmileCare

Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996).

“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that

the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Polich v. Burlington N., Inc., 942

F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir.1991). When exercising its discretion to deny leave to amend, “a

court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decisions on the

merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977,

979 (9th Cir. 1981).

DISCUSSION

Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. According to Defendant,

Plaintiff's Complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to: (1) establish a claim for breach of

contract; (2) demonstrate that any contract existed between the parties apart from the

Employment Separation Agreement and Release; and (3) show that Defendant's conduct

Case 2:06-cv-02285-SMM Document 12 Filed 02/20/07 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 -

caused him compensatory damages. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's motion to

dismiss; rather, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting new claims against

Defendant and dropping the previous claim for breach contract. 

Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a party may amend

the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is

served." The Ninth Circuit does not consider a motion to dismiss a 'responsive pleading'

within the meaning of the Rule. See, e.g., Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir.

1995). Therefore, Plaintiff properly exercised his right to amend the pleadings without leave

of court or consent of the opposing party. In light of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which

contains no claim for breach of contract, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

is moot. 

Finally, the Court advises Plaintiff that he will not be appointed counsel. Unlike the

Amended Complaint, which Plaintiff was entitled to as a matter of course, the appointment

of counsel is a matter reserved solely to the discretion of this Court. Johnson v. Railway

Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 458 (1975). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint demonstrates that

he is capable of performing legal research and writing at a basic level. Accordingly, the Court

will not appoint Plaintiff counsel.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, in light of the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Defendant Honeywell International, Inc.'s

Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4) as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's request for appointment of

counsel. 

DATED this 16th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02285-SMM Document 12 Filed 02/20/07 Page 3 of 3