Anzures v. La Canasta Mexican Food Prods. Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. 1 CA-CV 14-0250,1 CA-CV 14-0250
• Parties: CHRIS ANZURES, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. LA CANASTA MEXICAN FOOD PRODUCTS INC., Defendant/Appellee.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

CHRIS ANZURES, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. LA CANASTA MEXICAN FOOD PRODUCTS INC., Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 14-0250

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

July 23, 2015

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2013-008432

The Honorable J. Richard Gama, Judge

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter, P.L.C., Phoenix

By Douglas C. Erickson

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

Kelhoffer, Manolio & Firestone, PLC, Scottsdale

By Veronica L. Manolio, John C. Shorb

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

THOMPSON, Judge:

¶1 Chris Anzures challenges the trial court's dismissal of his complaint for failing to state a claim against La Canasta Mexican Food Products Inc. (La Canasta) for wrongful termination/retaliation, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.¹ Anzures further challenges the court's refusal to grant him leave to amend the complaint, and the court's failure to grant his discovery motions.² For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Anzures was employed by La Canasta as a production manager from approximately January 2012 until June 2012. During his employment, Anzures discovered various safety, OSHA, and health code violations. Anzures reported the violations to La Canasta's owner, and informed him that he had also discovered that La Canasta unlawfully hired and retained undocumented workers. Although La Canasta addressed andcorrected some of the reported health and safety issues, Anzures claimed that the owner instructed him to ignore the hiring of undocumented workers. On June 6, 2012, Anzures wrote La Canasta a letter formally notifying the company of the violations, reporting that he was being instructed to violate the law, and requesting that La Canasta investigate and correct the issues he raised. La Canasta considered Anzures's letter a voluntary resignation and immediately terminated his employment.

¶3 In September 2012, Anzures filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that La Canasta retaliated against him by terminating his employment after he reported policy violations and criminal activity. The EEOC issued a determination and notice of right to sue on October 12, 2012, stating that after an investigation, EEOC was unable to conclude that the allegations established a violation of the statutes.

¶4 Anzures filed a complaint against La Canasta on June 5, 2013, for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, retaliatory termination of employment, discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. La Canasta moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the grounds that Anzures failed to state a claim for relief, failed to file a timely charge of discrimination, and failed to file the retaliatory termination claim within the statute of limitations. Anzures disputed that the complaint was deficient, but posited that he would be able to cure any defects if granted leave to amend.

¶5 On December 9, 2013, the trial court found that Anzures failed to state a claim against La Canasta upon which relief could be granted, and that amendment of the complaint would be futile. Thus, the trial court dismissed Anzures's complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Anzures filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.

¶6 Anzures timely appealed from the dismissal of the complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), -2101(A)(1) (2003).

DISCUSSION

¶7 We review a trial court's dismissal of a complaint de novo. Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 355, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 863, 866 (2012). "'Arizona follows a notice pleading standard,' under which a complaint 'shall contain . . . [a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that thepleader is entitled to relief.'" Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Bradley, 231 Ariz. 448, 455, ¶ 17, 296 P.3d 984, 992 (App. 2012) (citing Ariz. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)) (internal citation omitted). This requires the plaintiff to plead facts sufficient to support the claim. Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, ¶ 7, 189 P.3d 344, 346 (2008). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, "we review the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint as true," Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz. 386, 389, ¶ 4, 121 P.3d 1256, 1259 (App. 2005), and resolve all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. McDonald v. City of Prescott, 197 Ariz. 566, 567, ¶ 5, 5 P.3d 900, 901 (App. 2000). We will uphold a dismissal only if the plaintiff "would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim." Dressler v. Morrison, 212 Ariz. 279, 281, ¶ 11, 130 P.3d 978, 980 (2006) (citation omitted). Although well-pleaded material allegations of the complaint are taken as true, conclusions of law or unwarranted deductions of fact are not. Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, 215 Ariz. 458, 466, ¶ 19, 160 P.3d 1216, 1224 (App. 2007).

Retaliatory Termination of Employment Claim

¶8 Anzures first argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim of retaliatory termination of employment. Under the Arizona Employment Protection Act, A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(c)(ii) (Supp. 2012) ("AEPA") an employee may bring a claim for wrongful termination if the employer has terminated the employment relationship in retaliation for:

The disclosure by the employee in a reasonable manner that the employee has information or a reasonable belief that the employer, or an employee of the employer, has violated, is violating or will violate the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes of the state to either the employer or a representative of the employer who the employee reasonably believes is in a managerial or supervisory position and has the authority to investigate the information provided by the employee and to take action to prevent further violations of the Constitution of Arizona or statutes of this state or an employee of a public body or political subdivision of this state or any agency of a public body or political subdivision.

A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(c)(ii); see also Galati v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 205 Ariz. 290, 292, ¶ 5, 69 P.3d 1011, 1013 (App. 2003).

¶9 La Canasta contends that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it was "devoid of any factualallegations" and merely set forth legal conclusions and conclusory statements. Additionally, Las Canasta asserts that the complaint failed to allege that Anzures's purported disclosure of the unlawful activity was the nexus for his termination. We disagree.

¶10 In the complaint, Anzures alleged that: Josie Ippolito is president and owner of La Canasta; Anzures discovered and reported to Ippolito that La Canasta "was hiring and retaining undocumented workers in violation of . . . A.R.S. § 23-212 [(2012)]" and its facility had multiple safety and health code violations; Ippolito instructed [Anzures] to ignore the reported violations; Anzures wrote a letter formally notifying La Canasta of the violations and requesting that it be investigated and corrected; and La Canasta terminated his employment for "refusing to condone, facilitate, or turn a blind eye to [La Canasta's] unlawful activities." Accordingly, Anzures clearly pled that he was fired for disclosing to La Canasta's owner that his employer, or an employee of the employer, was violating an Arizona statute. These facts, taken as true, are sufficient to satisfy the essential elements of an AEPA retaliatory termination claim.³ See A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(c)(ii); see also Acker v. CSO Chevira, 188 Ariz. 252, 255, 934 P.2d 816, 819 (App. 1997) (stating that motions to dismiss are not favored and should not be granted unless it appears that the plaintiff should be denied relief as a matter of law given the facts alleged). Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the retaliatory termination claim.

¶11 In addition, we reject La Canasta's argument that Anzures's retaliatory termination claim is time barred pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(e) (2012) or the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA) A.R.S. § 41-1481 (2011). Anzures filed a charge of discrimination with the Arizona Civil Rights Division and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and received his notice of right to sue on October 12, 2012. Because Anzures did not file his complaint until 236 days after receipt of the notice of right to sue, La Canasta contends that the claim for retaliatory termination was untimely. See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(e) (authorizing aggrieved party to file acivil action under Title VII of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) within ninety days of receipt of the notice of right to sue); A.R.S. § 41-1481 (providing a 180 day statute of limitations). However, Anzures's complaint included a claim for retaliatory termination of employment under AEPA, not under ACRA or Title VII. Anzures filed the complaint within one year of the date of his termination of employment, thus, the retaliatory termination claim was timely. See A.R.S. 12-541(4) (2003) (setting a one year statute of limitations for a wrongful termination claim).

Defamation Claim

¶12 Anzures next argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his defamation claim. To plead a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant made a false statement concerning the plaintiff to a third party; the defendant acted knowingly, recklessly, or negligently in disregarding the falsity of the...