Childress v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp., et al, No. 2:2009cv01355 - Document 9 (D. Ariz. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING dft's motion to dismiss 6 . Moreover, because the ADEA addresses the conduct of employers only and does not impose liability on individual employees, we also sua sponte dismiss claims against the remaining individual dfts. See Miller v. Maxwells Intl, Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 588 (9thCir. 1993). The clerk shall enter final judgment. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 8/11/09.(KMG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Childress v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp., et al 1 Doc. 9 WO 2 3 4 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Susan Childress, 10 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 Scottsdale Healthcare Corp., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-09-1355-PHX-FJM ORDER 15 16 17 The court has before it defendant Scottsdale Healthcare Corporation’s motion to 18 dismiss (doc. 6). Plaintiff has not responded and the time for doing so has expired. See 19 LRCiv 7.2(c). 20 Plaintiff originally filed this action in state court, alleging state law claims of wrongful 21 termination and defamation arising out of termination of her employment by defendants. 22 After plaintiff’s claims were dismissed as untimely, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, 23 asserting age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 24 § 626(b) (“ADEA”). The action was removed to this court on June 24, 2009. Defendants 25 now move to dismiss the complaint, contending that the ADEA claim is time-barred. 26 Under LRCiv 7.2(i), if a party “does not serve and file the required answering 27 memoranda, . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of 28 the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 We agree that plaintiff’s ADEA claim is time-barred. Therefore, pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i), IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 6). 3 Moreover, because the ADEA addresses the conduct of employers only and does not 4 impose liability on individual employees, we also sua sponte dismiss claims against the 5 remaining individual defendants. See Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 588 (9th 6 Cir. 1993). The clerk shall enter final judgment. 7 DATED this 11th day of August, 2009. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
