Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08153/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08153-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Vina Yazzie, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mohave County, Steve Latoski, Ramon 

Osuna, Kevin Stockbridge and Warren 

Twitchel, 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-08153-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 On April 1, 2015, Defendants filed a partial motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

After numerous extensions, Plaintiff responded on August 14, 2015. At Defendants’ 

request, this Court held oral argument on October 27, 2015. At oral argument, Plaintiff’s 

counsel argued that Plaintiff had evidence relevant to equitable tolling and that the 

motion for judgment on the pleadings (as to the exhaustion argument) would have been 

more properly filed as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 motion. 

 While the Court was very disappointed that counsel would wait almost seven 

months to argue that a motion needed to be considered under a different procedural 

mechanism, the Court nonetheless converted the motion for judgment on the pleadings to 

a motion under Rule 56, and permitted counsel to respond and present evidence. Doc. 

68. 

 Apparently, the Court’s order converting the motion for judgment on the pleadings 

to a motion under Rule 56 was ambiguous because Plaintiff’s counsel literally just 

Case 3:14-cv-08153-JAT Document 71 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

submitted evidence. This was not the Court’s intent. Once the motion was converted (as 

to the exhaustion issue), Plaintiff needed to respond as she would to any other motion for 

summary judgment, including filing a memorandum of points and authorities, a statement 

of facts, and then appropriately attaching evidence to the statement of facts. This Court 

will not undertake to review Plaintiff’s evidence and hypothesize arguments for how 

those pieces of evidence might qualify Plaintiff for equitable tolling, and/or for how long 

such tolling might be appropriate. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s supplemental response filed at Doc. 70 is 

stricken. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a supplemental response 

that fully complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule Civil 56.1 by 

Tuesday, November 10, 2015. If Plaintiff fails to file a complying response within this 

deadline, the Court will deem all of Plaintiff’s procedural objections to this Court 

considering the pending motion as one for judgment on the pleadings to be waived. 

 Dated this 6th day of November, 2015. 

Case 3:14-cv-08153-JAT Document 71 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 2