Addvensky v. Dysart Unified School District No. 89
2:11-cv-00283
D. Ariz.May 17, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Frank Addvensky was employed by El Mirage Unified School District but allegedly assigned to teach computers despite intending to be a library media specialist.
- Plaintiff contends he was told to perform computer duties and that assignment violated his claimed librarian role.
- Plaintiff resigned on October 8, 2009 after discussions with the El Mirage principal and later obtained unemployment benefits for good cause due to misrepresentation.
- Plaintiff filed suit January 24, 2011 asserting fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, age discrimination, Arizona Employment Protection Act, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction over age discrimination with supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Employment contract (dated August 6, 2009) described Plaintiff as a “Certificated Employee” and allowed duties as enumerated or as assigned; no librarian designation appears in the contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for state claims | Rule 66(d) tolling alleged due to conservatorship | Rule 66(d) tolling not proven and improper on a 12(b)(6) motion | Untimely; no tolling proven; amendment allowed |
| Fraud claims lack of particularity | Employment contract contains misrepresentation | No specific false statement pleaded; vague allegations | Dismissed Count One for failure to plead with Rule 9(b) particularity |
| Breach of contract claim viable? | Employment duties include librarian role | Contract lacks librarian term and specific duties | Dismissed Count Two for lack of facial plausibility; need specific contract terms |
| Promissory estoppel viability | Promissory estoppel based on promises to hire as librarian | No promise identified; contract governs duties | Dismissed Count Six without prejudice; need identifiable promise |
Key Cases Cited
- Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, 647 P.2d 629 (Ariz. 1982) (fraud elements under Arizona law)
- Haisch v. Allstate Ins. Co., 5 P.3d 940 (Ariz. App. 2000) (Rule 9(b) particularity standard applied to fraud claims)
- Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2001) (particularity requirement for fraud under Rule 9(b))
- Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1989) (fraud pleadings require time, place, and nature details)
- Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999) (explanation of Rule 9(b) pleading standards)
- In re GlenFed Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994) (pleading standards and rule-based requirements)
- TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1999) (timeliness and tolling considerations for limitations period)