Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02273/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02273-0/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

 AEA has also filed a pleading entitled “Arizona Education Association’s Motion

to Strike Complaint Filed November 21, 2007”(Doc. #18). AEA argues that since Plaintiff

has not obtained leave of Court for filing an amended complaint, the Court should strike the

Complaint filed November 21, 2007. The Court will deny AEA’s motion. The Complaint

filed on November 21, 2007, is Plaintiff’s original Complaint – not an amended complaint

as AEA’s pleading suggests.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John P. Warden, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Coolidge Unified School District, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-07-2273-PHX-MHB

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to amend complaint (Docs. ##17, 28).

Defendants Coolidge Unified School District, Sarah Robles, and Thomas Beckett (“District

Defendants”) and Defendant Arizona Education Association (“AEA”) have both filed

motions to strike Plaintiff’s lodged proposed First Amended Complaint (Docs. ##21, 26).1

After considering the arguments raised by the parties in their briefing, the Court now issues

the following ruling.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint with the Court on November 21, 2007 alleging violations

pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VII. AEA answered

Case 2:07-cv-02273-MHB Document 32 Filed 05/01/08 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 -

Plaintiff’s Complaint on December 21, 2007. On December 31, 2007, the District

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and, on January 10, 2008, AEA filed a Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed two motions to amend his complaint

and lodged his proposed First Amended Complaint with the Court alleging violations of the

ADA, Title VII, Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) declares that “[t]he court should freely give

leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” The Ninth Circuit has noted that “Rule 15’s

policy of favoring amendments should be applied with extreme liberality.” Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). A court may deny a motion

to amend, however, if there is a showing of undue delay or bad faith on the part of the

moving party, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the proposed amendments.

See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The party opposing amendment bears the

burden of showing prejudice, futility, or one of the other recognized reasons for denying a

motion to amend. See DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).

The District Defendants contend that “plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint appears

to be futile.” AEA asserts, as it argued in its motion to strike Plaintiff’s original Complaint,

that since Plaintiff has not obtained leave of Court to file an amended complaint, the Court

should strike Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint. AEA also states that Plaintiff’s

motions to amend should be denied “on grounds of futility.”

The Court finds the reasoning of both the District Defendants and AEA unpersuasive.

The Court will not address the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims while considering his motions

to amend. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motions to amend complaint.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to amend complaint (Docs. ##17, 28) are

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall file the lodged proposed First Amended

Complaint;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc.

#21) and AEA’s motions to strike (Docs. ##18, 26) are DENIED;

Case 2:07-cv-02273-MHB Document 32 Filed 05/01/08 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the currently pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

#6) and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #7), which both address the original

Complaint, are DENIED as moot, without prejudice and with leave to refile all or part of

said motions as to the First Amended Complaint;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Defendants shall respond to the First Amended

Complaint within 20 days from the date this Order is filed.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02273-MHB Document 32 Filed 05/01/08 Page 3 of 3