United States District Court, D. Arizona
Rebecca D. Mazeau, Plaintiff,
SHPS Acquisition Corporation, et al., Defendants.
JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 20). The Court now rules on the motion.
A. Procedural History
Plaintiff initially filed a complaint on April 19, 2013, but later withdrew this complaint. (Doc. 20 at 3, 6). On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed another complaint in the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County. (Doc. 20 at 3; Doc. 1 at 11). This case was then removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff amended her complaint several times and defendant now moves to dismiss the amended complaint. (Doc. 20).
B. Factual History
On November 4, 2009, Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a "Quality Assurance Lead." (Doc. 19 at ¶ 1). Plaintiff suffered a stroke in July of 2010 that "required  long term hospitalization." ( Id. at ¶ 2). Plaintiff "utilized her short term disability coverage from July 2010 through December 2010. ( Id. at ¶ 5). After Plaintiff's short term disability coverage had run out, Plaintiff then inquired as to whether FMLA leave was available and elected to take FMLA leave in January 2011. ( Id. at ¶ 7). While Plaintiff was on FMLA leave, Defendants terminated Plaintiff's employment on February 28, 2011. (Doc. 20 at 6). Plaintiff filed a claim with the EEOC, who decided not to pursue her claim and mailed her a right-to-sue letter on January 10, 2013. (Doc. 20 at 5; Doc. 8 at Ex. C). Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint alleging FMLA and ADA violations on April 19, 2013. (Doc. 21 at 5; Doc. 20 at 6). Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint general factual violations of the FMLA and ADA:
9. SHPS failed to offer Petitioner FMLA leave at any time, rather, Petitioner had to inquire as to whether this was an option after her short term disability ended.
10. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D), SHPS unlawfully interfered with Petitioner's FMLA rights by failing to offer her the options to take FMLA leave after a triggering event occurred....
13. While Petitioner was on FMLA leave, SHPS terminated Petitioner's employment.
14. SHPS unlawfully interfered with Petitioner's FMLA and ADA rights by failing to hold an employment position open for Petitioner during her leave, and terminating a person with a known and recorded disability.
(Doc. 19 at ¶¶ 9, 10, 13, 14).
Defendants move to dismiss both the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") claims arguing that the claims are time-barred. (Doc. 20 at 1). Defendants do not specify whether they move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) or 12(b)(1), but the Court interprets this motion as being pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See Sisseton-Wahepton Oyate of Lake Traverse Reservation v. U.S. Corps. Of Engineers, 918 F.Supp.2d 962, 967 (D.S.D. 2013) ("the statute of limitations is a jurisdictional limit"); see also St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Like other challenges to a court's subject matter ...