Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01526/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01526-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eddie W. Bell, Jr.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robert Moore and The Hillman Group,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1526-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendant Robert Moore's ("Moore") Motion to Dismiss

Moore as a Party to the suit (Doc. 9), Plaintiff Eddie W. Bell, Jr.'s ("Bell") Motion to Amend

Complaint (Doc. 14), and Defendant Moore's Motion for Summary Disposition (Doc. 19).

After considering the arguments, the Court issues the following Order.

BACKGROUND

On or about May 30, 2006, Bell filed a complaint alleging violations of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"),

and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), and

retaliation. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged the following: "Title VII (company condones slaver

[sic] driver comment); failure to provide a safe and healthy work environment (dust particles

at work station caused asthma condition to worsen); stress conditions caused mental

condition to increase; electrical parts that are not suitably guarded isolated or insulated;

Case 2:06-cv-01526-SMM Document 21 Filed 03/20/07 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

1

At the Pretrial Conference, the Court discussed at length Bell's obligation as to

comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, Bell represented to the Court that he

was not intending to file any amendments to his Complaint. His Motion to Amend was filed

10 days after the Pretrial Conference.

- 2 -

misuse of disability funds and hostile work environment harassment and eavesdropping."

(Doc.1).

Thereafter, Defendants timely filed their Answer. On November 20, 2006, pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Moore filed a Motion

to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. By an Order dated November 29, 2006, this Court advised Defendant of the specific

provisions of LRCiv 7.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona. Further, the Court explained that the failure of Plaintiff to respond to

Defendant Moore’s Motion to Dismiss may, in the discretion of the Court, be deemed a

consent to the granting of that Motion without further notice, and judgment may be entered

dismissing the Complaint and action with prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). To date, the

Court has not received Plaintiff's Response. On December 5, 2006, this Court held a

Preliminary Pretrial Conference. Prior to the conference, the parties filed a Rule 26(f) Case

Management Plan. Despite representations made to the contrary1

, on December 15, 2006,

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint (Doc. 14). On January 3, 2007, Moore filed

a Motion for Summary Disposition (Doc. 19) on the grounds that Bell failed to comply with

Local Rule 7.2(i) and this Court's Order pertaining to his obligation to respond to the

pending Motion to Dismiss. Based on the foregoing, the Court makes the following ruling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

I. Fed.R.Civ.P.15(a)

Rule 15(a) provides that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.

R. Civ. P. While leave to amend is not automatic, it will generally be granted unless the

opposing party makes a showing of "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of

Case 2:06-cv-01526-SMM Document 21 Filed 03/20/07 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 - 3 -

the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment or futility of

amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (emphasis added).

DISCUSSION

II. Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) and Motion for Summary Disposition (Doc. 19)

The argument made by Defendant Moore regarding Plaintiff's failure to respond to

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is well taken by the Court. Local Rule 7.2(i) provides that

the failure of Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's motion may, in the discretion of the Court,

be deemed a consent to the granting of that Motion. LRCiv 7.2(i). Courts have consistently

exercised their discretion to grant motions on collateral issues, on the basis that, in failing to

respond, the opposing party has consented to such action by the court. Gwaduri v. I.N.S., 362

F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004). Failure to follow a district court's local rule is a proper

ground for dismissal. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (the

Court explicitly limited its holding to Rule 12 motions) (citing U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471,

474 (9th Cir. 1979); but see Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (C.A.9 (Ariz.),1994) (citing

Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir.1993) (“[a] local rule that requires

the entry of summary judgment simply because no papers opposing the motion are filed or

served, and without regard to whether genuine issues of material fact exist, would be

inconsistent with [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 56, hence impermissible under [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 83.”). In the

instant case, the language of LRCiv 7.2(i) is permissive in nature. Therefore, the decision

as to whether dismissal is appropriate is within the discretion of the trial judge and is

properly determined based on the specific record. 

Moore asserts that he is not a proper party to this suit as a matter of law, and in his

Motion to Dismiss, he set forth numerous legal arguments in support of his assertion.

Furthermore, Moore filed his Motion to Dismiss on November 20, 2006, and to date

Defendant has yet to respond to the motion. Such a failure to respond is critical to

Case 2:06-cv-01526-SMM Document 21 Filed 03/20/07 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 -

Defendant Moore because absent disposition of the motion, Moore is forced to defend a case

for which he contends he is not a proper party. Further, Moore was compelled to spend time

and resources filing a Motion for Summary Disposition to raise the issue with the Court of

Bell's non-compliance. Consequently, the Court finds that justice so requires the Court to

grant the Motion to Dismiss Moore as a party to avoid unfair harm to Defendant Moore for

Bell's failure to comply with Local Rules, and specific warnings provided by the Court.

Moreover, despite the fact that Plaintiff is representing himself, he is still bound by

the Rules of Civil Procedure. See American Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst,

227 F.3d 1104, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that the pro per litigant must follow court

rules). Consequently, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) Plaintiffs Complaint as to Defendant

Moore for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is hereby GRANTED.

In light of the Court's decision, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition (Doc.19)

is hereby GRANTED for the reasons stated herein.

III. Motion to Amend (Doc. 14)

Plaintiff moves for leave to file an Amended Complaint adding a new cause of action

based upon the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion,

arguing that the amendment would be futile because the Privacy Act does not apply to private

entities such as The Hillman Group. "5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) limits the disclosure of federal

agency records; § 552a(g)(1) provides a private cause of action against an agency for failing

to comply with § 552a(b). The agency is the only proper party to such a suit; the civil remedy

provisions do not apply to individual defendants." Schowengerdt v. General Dynamics

Corp., 823 F.2d 1328, 1340 (9th Cir.1987); See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1); Unt v. Aerospace

Corp., 765 F.2d 1440, 1447 (9th Cir.1985). Furthermore, under the Privacy Act, the

definition of "agency" includes only the following: an executive department, military

department, government corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch, or any

independent regulatory agency. 5 U.S.C. §552(f)(1). Accordingly, Defendants contend and

Case 2:06-cv-01526-SMM Document 21 Filed 03/20/07 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 -

the Court agrees that granting Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint to add a cause of action

under the Privacy Act of 1974 would be futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint (Doc. 14) is

hereby DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend his

Complaint (Doc.14) to add a claim on the grounds that Defendants violated the Privacy Act

of 1974 is DENIED with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Moore's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9)

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6)

is hereby GRANTED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Moore's Motion for Summary

Disposition (Doc. 19) is hereby GRANTED.

DATED this 20th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01526-SMM Document 21 Filed 03/20/07 Page 5 of 5