Bruner et al v. Phoenix, City of, No. 2:2018cv00664 - Document 62 (D. Ariz. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER denying the 13 Motion for More Definite Statement. ORDERED that Defendant must file an Answer on or before March 1, 2019. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 2/20/2019. (LFIG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bruner et al v. Phoenix, City of 1 Doc. 62 WO 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Maria Bruner, et al., Plaintiffs, 10 11 v. 12 City of Phoenix, 13 No. CV-18-00664-PHX-DJH ORDER Defendant. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite 16 Statement (Doc. 13). Plaintiffs filed a Response (Doc. 17), and Defendant filed a Reply 17 (Doc. 18). 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On February 28, 2018, Maria Bruner and Laura Cerda (collectively “Plaintiffs”), 20 two Hispanic women, filed their Complaint, which asserted claims pursuant to Title VII of 21 the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of racial harassment, sexual harassment, and retaliation by 22 their employer, the City of Phoenix (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs have been 23 employed by Defendant since 2005. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 19). Plaintiff Bruner alleges that she has 24 been subjected to discriminatory harassment based on her race and gender since May of 25 2011, and Plaintiff Cerda alleges that she has been subjected to harassment since 2010. 26 (Id. ¶¶ 13, 22). Plaintiff Bruner alleges that despite repeatedly complaining about the 27 discriminatory misconduct to Defendant over the past five to six years, the discriminatory 28 harassment continued. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18). Similarly, Plaintiff Cerda alleges repeatedly Dockets.Justia.com 1 complaining to the Defendant of the co-worker’s racial slurs against her and her family, 2 and the Defendant “did not do anything about it. . . .” (Id. ¶ 27). 3 Plaintiffs are both married to African-Americans, and the co-worker allegedly 4 harassed Plaintiffs by using discriminatory racial epithets, including: “nigger,” “nigger 5 lover,” and “mayate.”1 (Id. at 2-3). For example, the co-worker told other employees “not 6 to interact with [Plaintiff] Bruner because [she] ‘only dated niggers. . . .’” (Id. ¶ 14 7 (emphasis in the original)). Additionally, Plaintiff Cerda alleges that when looking at a 8 photo of her son on her desk, the co-worker stated, “how much she dislikes ‘mayates’ . . . 9 and how she could not believe that someone would ‘date out of their race’ . . . .” (Id. ¶ 24). 10 As for their sexual harassment claims, Plaintiff Bruner claims the co-worker falsely 11 accused her of being a swinger who “engaged in extramarital sexual affairs” at work. (Id. 12 ¶ 16). Likewise, Plaintiff Cerda asserts the co-worker spread false rumors that she cheated 13 on her husband, “having sex in the workplace.” (Id. ¶ 26). 14 Plaintiffs claim they suffered, and continue to suffer, a negative impact on their 15 employment and psychological well-being. (Id. at 3-4). Plaintiffs allege that after they 16 notified Defendant of the discrimination, Defendant subsequently falsely accused them of 17 misconduct and subjected them to unwarranted investigations. (Id. ¶ 33). Both Plaintiffs 18 filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in August 19 2017, and each received a right to sue letter on approximately November 30, 2017. (Id. 20 ¶¶ 34, 35). 21 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 22 A motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure is only proper if the pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot 24 reasonably prepare a response.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Rule 12(e) provides a party with the 25 opportunity to point out “the defects complained of and the details desired.” Id. However, 26 a motion for a more definite statement, also known as a Rule 12(e) motion, is “ordinally 27 restricted to situations where a pleading suffers from unintelligibility rather than want of 28 1 Derogatory Spanish term for African-Americans. -2- 1 detail, and if the requirements of the general rule as to pleading are satisfied and the 2 opposing party is fairly notified of the nature of the claim such motion is inappropriate.” 3 Castillo v. Norton, 219 F.R.D. 155, 163 (D. Ariz. 2003) (quoting Sheffield v. Orius Corp., 4 211 F.R.D. 411, 414-15 (D. Or. 2002)); see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dean, 854 F. 5 Supp. 626, 649 (D. Ariz. 1994) (“Rule 12(e) is designed to strike at unintelligibility rather 6 than want of detail.”). 7 As pleadings in federal court are only required to fairly notify the opposing party of 8 the nature of the claim, Rule 12(e) motions are disfavored and not to be used to test a case 9 by requiring the opponent to allege certain facts or withdraw from his or her allegations. 10 See Castillo, 219 F.R.D. at 163 (citing Resolution Trust Corp., 854 F. Supp. at 649). If the 11 details sought by a Rule 12(e) motion are obtainable through discovery, the motion should 12 be denied. See Sheffield, 211 F.R.D. at 415 (“A motion for a more definite statement is not 13 to be used to assist in getting facts in preparation for trial as such; other rules relating to 14 discovery, interrogatories and the like exist for such purposes.”) (internal quotation and 15 citation omitted)). While a 12(e) motion is only appropriate when the complaint “does not 16 provide defendants with a fair opportunity to frame a responsive pleading,” the decision to 17 grant or deny the motion is generally left to the discretion of the district court. McHenry 18 v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996). 19 The Rule 12(e) standard should be viewed in conjunction with the liberal pleading 20 requirements of Rule 8. Castillo, 219 F.R.D. at 159. Rule 8 requires a complaint contain 21 a “short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 22 8(a)(2). In order to meet this threshold, the complaint only needs enough allegations to 23 inform defendants of the claims made against them. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 24 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 In the instant Motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs failed to identify: (1) the 27 specific claims they are asserting and (2) the timing of the alleged harassment and 28 retaliatory adverse employment actions that gave rise to their claims. (Doc. 13 at 1). -3- 1 First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to assert the specific claims in their 2 Complaint, which rendered the Complaint “‘vague and ambiguous.’” (Doc. 13 at 4). The 3 Court disagrees. Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint need only contain a short, plain statement 4 of each claim to put defendants on sufficient notice of the allegations against them. Here, 5 the Complaint provides that Plaintiffs are asserting claims to “stop and remediate racial 6 harassment, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace. . . .” (Doc. 1 ¶ 1). 7 Moreover, Plaintiffs provided specific details regarding the discriminatory racial epithets 8 and conduct that they were allegedly subjected to. (Doc. 1 at 2-4). Although Plaintiffs’ 9 Complaint did not provide a comprehensive list of every racial slur or discriminatory act 10 they were subjected to, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have put forth enough details to 11 provide Defendant with a fair idea of the basis of the Complaint and the legal grounds 12 claimed for recovery. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 514 (holding a complaint 13 in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a 14 prima facie case; it only needs to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing 15 that the pleader is entitled to relief); Castillo, 219 F.R.D. at 163 (finding that plaintiff’s 16 complaint fairly notified defendant of the nature of the claims, even though the complaint 17 did not contain details regarding who discriminated against him, when the discrimination 18 occurred, or the exact circumstances surrounding the misconduct). 19 Second, Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is “vague and ambiguous” 20 regarding the timing of events giving rise to their claims. (Doc. 13 at 1-3). The Court 21 again disagrees. Specific dates are not required. See Sheffield, 211 F.R.D. at 415 (finding 22 it is not necessary for a plaintiff to plead specific dates). The Complaint need only provide 23 Defendant with a general timeframe of when the alleged events occurred; the specific 24 details are determined through the discovery process. See id. Here, Plaintiff Cerda alleges 25 she was subjected to discriminating slurs and harassment consistently from 2010 to when 26 Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on February 28, 2018. (Doc 1 ¶¶ 22, 27). Likewise, Plaintiff 27 Bruner claims she suffered discriminatory harassment which started in May 2011 by a co- 28 worker and continued until the Complaint was filed. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15). Plaintiff Cerda’s -4- 1 allegations, though not as specific as Plaintiff Bruner’s, still meets the Rule 8 pleading 2 standard. Moreover, Defendant’s own Motion even refers to the Plaintiffs’ timeframe of 3 events; thus, Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiffs provided a general timeframe of the 4 alleged discrimination. For example, Defendant’s motion recognizes that Plaintiff Bruner 5 had been subjected to discriminatory harassment based on her race and gender since last 6 May 2011, and Plaintiff Cerda since 2010. (Doc. 13 at 2). Moreover, Defendant’s motion 7 also recognizes Plaintiffs’ five to six year timeline of Defendant’s alleged retaliatory 8 actions against Plaintiffs. (Id.) The Court finds Plaintiffs’ Complaint has provided a 9 sufficient timeline regarding the timing of their claims. See McKeever, 932 F.2d. at 798 10 (finding Rule 8 does not require a complaint to have a timeframe when the events 11 occurred); Sheffield, 211 F.R.D. at 415 (finding that a complaint need only set forth the 12 approximate dates on which the alleged events occurred; it does not need to provide the 13 specific dates) (citation omitted). 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 Plaintiffs’ Complaint is not “so vague or ambiguous” that Defendant cannot 16 reasonably prepare a response. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Complaint provided 17 sufficient identifying information to place Defendant on notice of the nature of their claims. 18 Defendant can use the appropriate available discovery tools to gather more specific 19 information, including gathering information to determine whether Plaintiffs have 20 complied with all applicable statutes of limitations. See Sheffield, 211 F.R.D. at 415 21 (holding that if defendant would like more specific details, then it should use its own 22 sources and the available discovery tools); Castillo, 219 F.R.D. at 164 (“Where the 23 information sought is available through the discovery process, a Rule 12(e) motion should 24 be denied.”) (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion for a 25 More Definite Statement. Accordingly, 26 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 13) 27 is DENIED; 28 … -5- 1 2 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, who has been served, must file an Answer on or before March 1, 2019. Dated this 20th day of February, 2019. 4 5 6 7 Honorable Diane J. Humetewa United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-
]]>
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.
