Tadesse v. Tungland Corporation
2:13-cv-02440
D. Ariz.Sep 24, 2014Background
- Hirut Million Tadesse et al. sued Tungland Corporation in the District of Arizona.
- Kone later moved to file a First Amended Complaint alleging Title VII retaliation on his behalf.
- Defendant argued the Title VII claim was untimely under 90-day limitations after EEOC Right to Sue letter.
- Court treated the motion as seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court analyzed Rule 15(c) relation back to the original complaint and whether Kone’s amendment should relate back.
- Court held Kone’s Title VII claim relates back and is timely because the amendment satisfies Rule 15(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion is proper under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(b)(1). | Kone contends relation back defeats timeliness. | Motion to dismiss should be under Rule 12(b)(1) due to jurisdictional/time limits. | Motion treated as Rule 12(b)(6) and denied. |
| Whether amendment relates back under Rule 15(c). | Amendment to add Kone arising from same conduct relates back. | No relation back unless requirements met. | Amendment relates back under Rule 15(c). |
| Whether adding Kone prejudices defendant or lacks adequacy notice. | Kone and Tadesse are similarly situated with common facts. | Addition may prejudice if not properly notice. | No prejudice; adequate notice under Immigrant Assistance Project. |
| Whether original complaint provided notice for added plaintiff. | Original complaint anticipated amendment to include additional plaintiff. | Not explicitly contemplated. | Original filing gave adequate notice to add Kone. |
| Whether filing within 90 days of EEOC letter is timely after relation back. | Relation back makes timing compliant with Title VII. | Untimeliness would still apply absent relation back. | Because of relation back, Title VII claim is timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. Cnty. Fed’n of Labor v. INS, 306 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002) (relation back when conditions are met; identity of interests; notice; prejudice)
- Rosenbaum v. Syntex Corp., 95 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 1996) (defendant-notice and identity of interests support relation back)
- Scholar v. Pac. Bell, 963 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1992) (timelines for Title VII actions; not jurisdictional)