Opinion
CV-21-01109-PHX-SMB
10-26-2022
Aziz Aityahia, Plaintiff, v. Westwind School of Aeronautics, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Susan M. Brnovich United States District Judge
Plaintiff brings a Motion for Relief (“MFR”) from this Court's March 4, 2022 Order (Doc. 46) granting Defendant United Airlines' (“United”) Motion to Dismiss and Westwind Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. (Docs. 14; 18.) This Motion is fully briefed. (See Docs. 48; 54-56.) The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's MFR for the reasons discussed herein.
Westwind Defendants includes Westwind School of Aeronautics (“Westwind School”) and Westwind Air Services (“Westwind Air”).
I. BACKGROUND
The Court's March 4 Order dismissed all claims against United and Westwind Air, as well as all claims against Westwind School pre-dating Plaintiff's February 2020 application. (See Doc. 46.) Here, Plaintiff requests relief from the Court's March 4 Order and argues: (1) United is the actual employer in this case; (2) a correction is required for a misstated date; (3) default judgment against Westwind School is required; and (4) United must be reinstated as a party. (Docs. 48; 54.)
On July 20, 2022, the Court entered final judgment in United's favor and dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. (Doc. 64.)
II. DISCUSSION
A. Actual Employer
Plaintiff recycles previous arguments when asserting United is the actual employer in this case. As this Court previously held and reaffirms here, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing to name United before his claims became time barred. (See Doc. 46 at 5.) The Court also reaffirms its previous holding that Plaintiff's successor liability argument fails. (See id. at 5-7.) Plaintiff's MFR on these grounds is therefore denied.
B. Procedural Defects
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a)
Plaintiff's MFR seeks to correct a misstated date under Rule 60(a). The rule states:
The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.Specifically, Plaintiff moves to correct the March 4 Order to state that oral argument was held on March 3, 2022, not March 3, 2020. (See Doc. 46 at 1.) Neither United nor Westwind School object to this correction. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff's requested Rule 60(a) relief.
As for Plaintiff seeking default judgment against Westwind School, the Court notes Plaintiff did not request relief under Rule 60(b). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (“On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for a list of reasons, including fraud under Rule 60(b)(3) (emphasis added)). It appears Plaintiff is relying on Rule 60(b)(3) when asserting that Westwind School “made a false representation to this court, by using the name of an entity that is no longer active as a corporation; let alone their response to the summon was late, therefore a default judgment is required in this case.” (Doc. 48 at 3.)
Even assuming Plaintiff properly asserted Rule 60(b)(3), which he did not, this argument still fails. Plaintiff named “Westwind School of Aeronautics” as the defendant in the Complaint (Doc. 1) and served Westwind School at its place of business on September 15, 2021. (Doc. 55 at 3.) Despite its legal name being “Westwind School of Aeronautics, Phoenix, LLC” Westwind School “understood who Plaintiff was trying to sue” and therefore appeared and defended the action by timely filing a Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 14) on October 5, 2021. (Doc. 55 at 3.) Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), defendants have 21 days to answer after being served with a summons and complaint. Westwind School satisfied this requirement. Westwind School also responded under the name Plaintiff wrote in the Complaint. As such, Plaintiff fails to raise arguments justifying default judgment for fraudulent behavior against Westwind School under Rule 60(b)(3) or otherwise.
Lastly, regarding Plaintiff's argument for reinstating United as a party, Plaintiff does not motion for relief under Rule 60(b), nor does he raise any new or applicable arguments under the rule. The Court will therefore only grant relief under Rule 60(a).
2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 61
Plaintiff cites Rule 61 in the MFR but fails to articulate claims for relief. Likewise, it is unclear to the Court how Rule 61 applies to Plaintiff's MFR because harmless error will not disrupt a judgment. Plaintiff's claim for relief under this rule fails.
3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)
Plaintiff next cites Rule 17(a)-(b) which governs real parties in interest being named in suits, and the capacity in which corporations can be sued. But this rule is inapplicable because it is Plaintiff's responsibility to name parties in the Complaint. And as this Court has already determined, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against United by not timely naming them as a party. Plaintiff's claim for relief under this rule fails.
4. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1
Lastly, Plaintiff cites Rule 7.1, which governs requirements for corporate disclosure statements. The Court finds this rule irrelevant to the MFR as it provides no grounds for relief, and further reiterates that final judgment has since been entered in favor of United. Plaintiff's claim for relief under this rule fails.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's MFR is granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 48.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED an Amended Order for (Doc. 46) will follow to reflect that oral argument was held on March 3, 2022, not March 3, 2020.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's remaining requests are denied.