Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02280/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02280-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernard Lindblom
Plaintiff
Secretary of the Army
Defendant
USA
Defendant

Document Text:

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

* This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1 The caption has been changed because this portion of the

motion is granted herein.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 )

)

)

BERNARD LINDBLOM, )

) 2:06-cv-2280-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Defendant moves to strike from Plaintiff’s Age

Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) his demand for a jury trial,

compensatory damages, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees. In

addition, Defendant moves to substitute the Secretary of the Army in

place of the named Defendant,1 and for a more definite statement under

Case 2:06-cv-02280-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 6
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 The rules references herein are the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).2 Plaintiff did not file an

opposition. See L.R. 78-230(c).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges age discrimination under the

ADEA and also makes references to retaliation and the Fair Labor

Standards Act. (Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 10.)

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standards

A. Motion to Strike

Rule 12(f) prescribes “the court may order stricken from any

pleading any . . . redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter.” “Motions to strike are generally viewed with disfavor, and

will usually be denied unless the allegations in the pleading have no

possible relation to the controversy, and may cause prejudice to one

of the parties.” Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 2007 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 24344, *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2007). “If the court is in

doubt as to whether the challenged matter may raise an issue of fact

or law, the motion to strike should be denied, leaving an assessment

of the sufficiency of the allegations for adjudication on the merits.” 

Id.

B. Motion For More Definite Statement

A Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement may be

granted where the complaint “is so vague or ambiguous that a party

cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading." Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(e).

Case 2:06-cv-02280-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 6
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

II. Motion to Dismiss and Substitute

Defendant argues that the proper Defendant is the Secretary

of the Army. (Def.’s Mot. to Strike at 4:9-20.) Plaintiff names

“United States of America, ex rel., U.S. Department of the Army” as

the Defendant. (Pl.’s Compl. at 1.) 

The proper Defendant in an ADEA suit brought by a federal

employee is the head of the department or agency. Romain v. Shear,

799 F.2d 1416, 1418 (9th Cir. 1986). “A public officer who . . . is

sued in an official capacity may be described . . . by the officer’s

title rather than by name.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(2). Therefore,

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the named Defendants and substitute the

Secretary of the Army is granted.

III. Motion to Strike 

A. Jury Demand

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s demand for a jury

trial arguing that Plaintiff has no right to a jury trial under the

ADEA because he is a federal employee. (Def.’s Mot. to Strike at

3:17-18.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is titled “Complaint and Jury

Demand.” (Pl.’s Compl. at 1.) 

“ADEA claims [against the Federal Government] cannot be

adjudicated by jury trial.” Agha v. Secretary of Army, 1992 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 18936, *17 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 1992) (citing Lehman v.

Nakshain, 453 U.S. 156, 165 (1981) (“Congress did not intend to confer

a right to trial by jury on ADEA plaintiffs proceeding against the

Federal Government.”) superseded by statute on other grounds as stated

in, Tyler v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 958 F.2d 1176 (2nd Cir. 1992)). 

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand from

his ADEA claim is granted.

Case 2:06-cv-02280-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 6
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

B. Liquidated Damages

Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for

liquidated damages for willful violations of the ADEA arguing that

federal employees have no right to liquidated damages under the ADEA. 

(Def.’s Mot. to Strike at 3:22-24.) 

“There is no mention of liquidated damages in section 633a,

the self-contained section of the ADEA applicable to federal

employees. . . . Had Congress intended to allow such an extraordinary

remedy in a suit against the United States, certainly Congress would

have expressly provided for it.” Smith v. Office of Personnel Mgmt.,

778 F.2d 258, 263 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Tietz v. Bowen, 695 F.

Supp. 441, 446 (N.D. Cal. 1987). Therefore, Defendant’s motion to

strike Plaintiff’s liquidated damages request from his ADEA claim is

granted. 

C. Compensatory Damages

Defendant also seeks to strike Plaintiff’s request for

compensatory damages arguing they are unavailable under the ADEA. 

(Def.’s Mot. to Strike at 3:19-21.) 

Remedies available under the ADEA are prescribed in 29

U.S.C. § 626(b). “The statute does not specifically mention damages

for pain and suffering or other general compensatory damages, and such

damages are conspicuously omitted from the definition of ‘amounts

owing.’” Naton v. Bank of California, 649 F.2d 691, 699 (9th Cir.

1981) (holding pain and suffering damages are not allowed under the

statute); see also Bahri v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 242 F. Supp. 2d 922,

954 (D. Or. 2002) (“[T]he ADEA does not permit a separate recovery of

compensatory damages for pain and suffering or emotional distress.”). 

Case 2:06-cv-02280-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 05/10/07 Page 4 of 6
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

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for

compensatory damages under the ADEA is granted.

D. Attorney’s Fees

Defendant seeks to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s

fees arguing that attorney’s fees are not available to a federal

employee under the ADEA. (Def.’s Mot. to Strike at 4:3-6.) 

It is unclear whether attorney’s fees are recoverable

against the federal government under the ADEA. Therefore, this

portion of Defendant’s motion is denied.

IV. Motion for More Definite Statement

Defendant argues Plaintiff should be ordered to make a more

definite statement because “Plaintiff’s complaint is so inexplicit

[that it] prevent[s] [D]efendant from framing a responsive pleading,

doing needed discovery, and [preparing for] summary judgment or

trial.” (Def.’s Mot. for More Definite Statement at 2:9-10.) 

Plaintiff’s Complaint neither clearly specifies what claims

he is asserting nor what factual allegations support each claim. 

(Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 5-8.) Under Rule 8(a), Plaintiff’s Complaint must

include, “a short and plain statement of [his] claim showing that [he]

is entitled to relief.” In addition, Rule 10(b) requires that each

claim “shall be made in numbered paragraphs, the contents of each of

which shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of a

single set of circumstances . . . [and each claim] shall be stated in

a separate count.” Therefore, Defendant’s motion is granted, and

Plaintiff shall state each claim he is alleging as required by the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:06-cv-02280-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 05/10/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the

named Defendant and substitute the Secretary of the Army is granted. 

Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s demand for a jury,

compensatory damages, and liquidated damages on his ADEA claim is

granted. Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for

attorney’s fees is denied. Defendant’s motion for a more definite

statement is granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended

Complaint consistent with the rulings herein no later than ten days

from the date on which this Order is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02280-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 05/10/07 Page 6 of 6