Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00015/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00015-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Corey Lee Fitzgerald, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Infinia Healthcare, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-15-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiffs Corey Lee Fitzgerald, Sharon K. Fitzgerald, Fred Walker, and Linda Walker

filed this lawsuit in state court claiming employment discrimination and retaliation in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the

Arizona Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”), A.R.S. § 41-1461 et seq. Defendants Infinia

Healthcare, Inc. and Scott W. Robertson properly removed the case to federal court on

January 3, 2008, and now move to dismiss. Plaintiffs have failed to respond, and the

deadline for filing a response has long passed. For the following reasons, the Court will

grant Defendants’ motion.

First, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that if an “unrepresented party or

counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, . . . such non-compliance

may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the

issue summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i). Ignorance of this rule is no excuse: “pro se litigants are

bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

Case 2:08-cv-00015-JAT Document 20 Filed 04/21/08 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

1

 This statement also holds true for ACRA claims. See, e.g., Timmons v. City of

Tucson, 830 P.2d 871, 875 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991) (“The state statutes are modeled after the

federal employment discrimination laws, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e. As a result, Title VII case law is persuasive in interpreting the [ACRA].”).

- 2 -

Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiffs’ failure to respond a consent to the granting of the

motion.

Second, a complaint that fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” must

be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Although “detailed factual allegations” are not

necessary to meet this pleading requirement, the plaintiff must, at a minimum, set forth

factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the Complaint does not

contain any factual allegations pertaining to Plaintiffs Fred and Linda Walker. Therefore,

the Court will dismiss these Plaintiffs from this suit.

Third, Title VII and the ACRA apply only to employers who have at least fifteen

employees. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; A.R.S. § 41-1461(4). Neither statute provides for liability

against individual employees. Barkclay v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2007 WL 4410257, at *3

(D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2007). Thus, Plaintiffs are barred from asserting Title VII and ACRA

claims against Defendant Robertson. The Court therefore will dismiss Defendant Robertson

from this suit.

Fourth, before bringing suit under Title VII or the ACRA, a claimant must exhaust

certain administrative remedies, which include filing a charge of discrimination with the

appropriate state or federal agency. See, e.g., Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d

621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988) (Title VII cases); Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa County, 943 P.2d 822,

829-30 (Ariz. 1997) (ACRA cases). As a general rule, “Title VII claimants may sue only

those [parties] named in the [charge of discrimination] because only they had an opportunity

to respond to charges during the administrative proceeding.”1

 Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d

1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs did not name Defendant Infinia Healthcare, Inc. in

their charge of discrimination, nor have they alleged any facts that would permit them to

Case 2:08-cv-00015-JAT Document 20 Filed 04/21/08 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 -

proceed against this Defendant under some exception to the general rule. The Court

therefore will dismiss Defendant Infinia Healthcare, Inc. from this suit.

Pursuant to the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Infinia Healthcare, Inc.’s and Scott W. Robertson’s

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 17) is GRANTED.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00015-JAT Document 20 Filed 04/21/08 Page 3 of 3