Rowland v. Prudential Financial Inc., 011110 FED9, 07-16358

Docket Nº:07-16358
Opinion Judge:GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges
Party Name:ARLENE D. ROWLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC.; WACHOVIA CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 11, 2010
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

ARLENE D. ROWLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC.; WACHOVIA CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 07-16358

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 11, 2010

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted December 15, 2009 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona No. CV-04-02287-EHC Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Arlene D. Rowland appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of state law, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX"), the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), and other federal statutes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for abuse of discretion denial of leave to amend and denial of a request for default judgment. Chodos v. West Publ'g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.

The district properly dismissed Rowland's federal discrimination and retaliation claims as untimely. See Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that where the plaintiff initially institutes proceedings with a state or local agency, a charge of employment discrimination must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") within 300 days of the discriminatory act); Edwards v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 892 F.2d 1442, 1445 (9th Cir. 1990) ("An action brought under Title VII must be filed within ninety days of receipt of a right to sue letter from the EEOC or appropriate state agency.").

The district court also properly dismissed Rowland's state discrimination claims and section 806 SOX claim for the same reason. See Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa County, 943 P.2d 822, 828 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1997) (explaining that under the Arizona Civil Rights Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1481(A), (D), "a charge must be filed with the [state agency] within 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred" and "[t]he charging party has one year after the filing of the charge" to file suit); 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b) (under the SOX, a plaintiff must file a charge with the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP