Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00509/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00509-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Grisell Alves
Plaintiff
Emerald Correctional Management LLC
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Grisell Alves, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Emerald Correctional Management LLC,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-00509-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to join an

indispensable party (doc. 23), plaintiff's response (doc. 24), and defendant's reply (doc. 25).

Plaintiff is currently married to Robert Alves. Plaintiff and her husband have been

living apart since 2008, although no divorce or separation proceedings have been initiated.

Robert Alves entered a rehabilitation facility in Oklahoma about two years ago to recover

from an addiction, and is currently living and working in Oklahoma. Plaintiff filed this action

on March 17, 2011, alleging that defendant wrongfully terminated her employment and

discriminated against her on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Robert Alves was not named as a party.

After successfully moving to set aside entry of default, defendant answered the

complaint on August 1, 2011 (doc. 14). Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint

Case 2:11-cv-00509-FJM Document 26 Filed 11/03/11 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

 Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. requires that a motion asserting a 12(b) defense "must be

made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed." Defendant's 12(b) motion was

filed two months after its answer to the complaint. Plaintiff has not objected to the timeliness

of the motion. Accordingly, we will not address the issue of timing.

- 2 -

pursuant to Rules 12(b)(7) and 19, Fed. R. Civ. P., for failure to join an indispensable party.1

Defendant argues that without Robert Alves as a plaintiff, the court cannot accord complete

relief among the parties. Given her estrangement from her husband, plaintiff would prefer

to prosecute her case separately, "without first obtaining her husband's permission or

cooperation." Response at 3. 

Arizona is a community property state. Consequently, Arizona law requires that

spouses be sued jointly to reach community assets. A.R.S. § 25-215; Eng v. Stein, 123 Ariz.

343, 345, 599 P.2d 796, 798 (1979) (A.R.S. § 25-215 requires that actions to collect

community obligations "be brought against both the husband and wife"); Spudnuts, Inc. v.

Lane, 139 Ariz. 35, 36 (Ct. App. 1984) ("A judgment against one spouse does not bind the

community."). If defendant succeeds in this action, it might be awarded costs and attorney's

fees under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Defendant argues that unless plaintiff's

husband is joined as a party, defendant would not be able to enforce a judgment against the

marital community. See Weimer v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 184 F.R.D. 309, 310-

11 (D. Ariz. 1998) (analyzing Arizona law and holding that spouse was a necessary party in

an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because a judgment awarding attorney's fees to the

defendant if it prevailed would not be binding absent plaintiff's spouse). Thus, without

Robert Alves as a plaintiff, defendant argues that "the court cannot accord complete relief

among existing parties." Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1). 

We disagree. If plaintiff prevails, the absence of her spouse from these proceedings

will not affect a judgment in her favor. And if defendant prevails, recovery of attorney's fees

is remote. Under Title VII, a defendant's attorney's fees are only recoverable when claims

are "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless." Harris v. Maricopa County Superior Court, 631

F.3d 963, 971 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412,

Case 2:11-cv-00509-FJM Document 26 Filed 11/03/11 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 -

422, 98 S. Ct. 694, 701 (1978)). We decline to conclude at this early stage of the case that

plaintiff's spouse is a necessary party based on a distant possibility that defendant might be

entitled to fees and costs. 

Our decision today will not prejudice defendant. Rule 12(h)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.

preserves the defense of failure to join an indispensable party, which can be raised as late as

trial. If summary judgment practice exposes plaintiff's claims to be frivolous, unreasonable,

or groundless, such that an award of attorney's fees to defendant is no longer mere

speculation, then defendant can renew its defense of Robert Alves' indispensability. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant's motion to dismiss for failure

to join an indispensable party without prejudice (doc. 23).

DATED this 3rd day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00509-FJM Document 26 Filed 11/03/11 Page 3 of 3