Espinoza v. Fry's Food Stores et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Christina Espinoza,
Plaintiff,
v.
Fry's Food Stores, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04286-PHX-SMB
ORDER
The Court now considers Defendant Fry’s Food Stores’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
12) and Plaintiff Christina Espinoza’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
(Doc. 22). The Motions are fully briefed. The Court rules as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff worked at Fry’s Food Stores and alleges that she was discriminated against
beginning in December 2022. (Doc. 1 at 4.) However, the Complaint only details allegedly
discriminatory behavior beginning in February 2023—when Plaintiff submitted a formal
complaint regarding her store manager and assistant manager. (Id. at 5.) After she
submitted her complaint, Plaintiff received “over 40 disciplinary actions, investigation
suspensions, and councils.” (Id.) Plaintiff goes on to briefly describe some of the alleged
disciplinary actions including attendance disciplinary actions and work suspensions. (Id.)
Plaintiff was terminated in July 2025. (Id.) Plaintiff thus asserts claims under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Americans
Case 2:25-cv-04286-SMB Document 27 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq. (the “ADA”).1
Plaintiff also filed two motions to amend her Complaint. (See Docs. 18, 22.) The
Court only considers the second Motion. Plaintiff also filed a Proposed Second Amended
Complaint (“PSAC”). (Doc. 23.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motions for Leave to Amend
To survive a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) motion for failure
to state a claim, a complaint must meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). Rule 8(a)(2)
requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief,” so that the defendant has “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). This notice exists if the pleader sets
forth “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory
or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A complaint that sets forth a
cognizable legal theory will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains sufficient factual
matter, which, if accepted as true, states a claim to relief that is “plausible on its face.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility does not equal
“probability,” but requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a
defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility . . . .’”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the well-pleaded factual allegations
1 The Complaint mentions a “Payroll Defensity” claim. (Doc. 1 at 4.) The Court is not
aware of any such claim and thus does not specifically consider this claim.
Case 2:25-cv-04286-SMB Document 27 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cousins
v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). However, legal conclusions couched as
factual allegations are not given a presumption of truthfulness, and “conclusory allegations
of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Pareto
v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). A court ordinarily may not consider evidence
outside the pleadings when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See United States
v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). “A court may, however, consider
materials—documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in
the complaint, or matters of judicial notice—without converting the motion to dismiss into
a motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 908.
B. Motions for Leave to Amend
Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). “There is a strong policy in favor of allowing amendment after considering four
factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and the futility of
amendment.” Frisvold v. Pentair Filtration Sols. LLC, No. C17-136RSL, 2017 WL
3236972, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2017) (citation modified). “[I]f the proposed
amendment would be futile (i.e., it would be immediately subject to dismissal if challenged
under Rule 12(b)(6)), there is no reason to put defendants through the unnecessary expense
and delay of responding to the amendment.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
A. ADA Claim
The nature of Plaintiff’s ADA claim is unclear. As a general matter, to state a prima
facie case of disability discrimination, Plaintiff must show that: (1) she is disabled; (2) she
was qualified for the position; and (3) she suffered an adverse employment action because
of his disability. Fleming v. IASIS Healthcare Corp., 151 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1052 (D. Ariz.
2015). Plaintiff fails to establish each of these elements. Critically, Plaintiff fails to allege
that she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Plaintiff also fails to even allege
that any adverse employment action was taken against her because of her disability.
Case 2:25-cv-04286-SMB Document 27 Filed 06/08/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s ADA claim without prejudice.
B. Title VII Claim
Similarly, the exact nature of Plaintiff’s Title VII claim is unclear. As a general
matter, “[t]o establish a prima facie case under Title VII, a plaintiff must offer proof:
(1) that the plaintiff belongs to a class of persons protected by Title VII; (2) that the plaintiff
performed his or her job satisfactorily; (3) that the plaintiff suffered an adverse
employment action; and (4) that the plaintiff's employer treated the plaintiff differently
than a similarly situated employee who does not belong to the same protected class as the
plaintiff.” Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff
fails to establish any of these elements. Critically, Plaintiff does not allege that she belongs
to a class of people protected by Title VII. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to even allege that
any of the disciplinary actions taken in this case were discriminatory. Accordingly, the
Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Title VII claim without prejudice.
C. Leave to Amend
The PSAC fails to remedy the mentioned defects. The PSAC includes more factual
allegations, however, these allegations proceed in a confusing and disjointed manner.
Nonetheless, the PSAC does not clearly allege that Plaintiff was discriminated against on
the basis of her disability—“Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety”—or was discriminated
against on the basis of any protected class under Title VII. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to Amend is otherwise moot because the Court gives Plaintiff leave to amend
here ADA and Title VII claims.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint must address the deficiencies identified above and
should follow the form detailed in Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Within
thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff may submit a First Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First
Amended Complaint.” The First Amended Complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its
entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint by reference.
The Court draws attention to the District of Arizona’s Federal Court Advice Only
Case 2:25-cv-04286-SMB Document 27 Filed 06/08/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Clinic, Federal Court Advice Only Clinic - Phoenix | District of Arizona | United States
District Court (uscourts.gov). The Court also notes the E-Pro Se program which assists
litigants with creating a Complaint form, Welcome - eProSe (uscourts.gov). Lastly, the
Court advises Plaintiff that certain resources for self-represented parties, including a
handbook and the Local Rules, are available on the Court’s website,
www.azd.uscourts.gov, by following the link “Self-Represented Litigants.”
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motions to File
Amended Complaints (Docs. 18, 22).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) with
leave to file a First Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file a First Amended
Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, the Clerk of Court shall dismiss
this action without further order from the Court.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04286-SMB Document 27 Filed 06/08/26 Page 5 of 5