Leon v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC
2:19-cv-01830
D. Nev.Jan 2, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Ariel Leon sued Wynn Las Vegas alleging Title VII discrimination, Nevada anti-discrimination violation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; he later filed an amended complaint adding a 2015 battery claim.
- Leon filed an EEOC right-to-sue letter dated April 14, 2016, but his federal complaint was not filed until October 18, 2019 (over three years later).
- The court previously granted in forma pauperis status but dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend because claims appeared time-barred.
- Leon moved for an extension of time to serve process; the court had not authorized service.
- The court found the amended complaint facially time‑barred for Title VII and state tort claims, concluded further amendment would be futile, denied the service-extension motion as not ripe, and recommended dismissal with prejudice.
- The record includes two earlier, materially identical suits by Leon in 2016 and 2018 that were dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Title VII claim (90‑day rule) | Leon asserts he filed an EEOC charge and received a right‑to‑sue letter (implying entitlement to sue) | Claim is untimely because suit was filed more than 90 days after right‑to‑sue letter | Title VII claim is time‑barred and subject to dismissal |
| Timeliness of state torts (IIED, battery) | Alleged incidents occurred in 2015; Leon proceeds despite delay | State statute of limitations (2 years) bars the tort claims | State tort claims are time‑barred |
| Motion to extend time for service of process | Requests additional time to serve defendants | Service not yet authorized; extension is premature | Motion denied as not ripe |
| Leave to amend / futility | Seeks to proceed despite prior dismissals and amendment | Prior dismissals, facial untimeliness, and repeated filings make amendment futile | Further amendment denied; complaint recommended dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir. 1980) (pro se allegations construed favorably)
- Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012) (leave to amend for pro se complaints)
- Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202 (9th Cir. 1988) (leave to amend standard in pro se cases)
- Nelmida v. Shelly Eurocars, Inc., 112 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 1997) (Title VII 90‑day filing period characterized as statute of limitations)
- Scholar v. Pac. Bell, 963 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1992) (untimely Title VII suits subject to dismissal)
- Ortez v. Washington County, State of Oregon, 88 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 1996) (failure to file within 90 days bars Title VII action)
- Million v. Frank, 47 F.3d 385 (10th Cir. 1995) (90‑day requirement as condition precedent/statute of limitations)
- Laquaglia v. Rio Hotel & Casino, Inc., 186 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1999) (state charge deemed filed with EEOC for tolling purposes)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedural rules for objections to magistrate judge reports)
- Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to timely object to magistrate's report may waive appeal)
- Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452 (9th Cir. 1983) (same)